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

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

moved that Bill C-10, An Act respecting the Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to acknowledge that we are gathered on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

I am honoured to rise and speak today as Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations to begin debate on my first bill, an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation. With the support and guidance of modern treaty and self-governing partners, I am introducing this important bill because it would lead to a stronger, more prosperous future for modern treaty partners and everyone in Canada.

Modern treaty partners across the country have been strong advocates for this legislation. Since I became minister, it has been consistently raised with me as something they want passed quickly. I want to thank and acknowledge the modern treaty and self-governing partners across the country who have guided the development of this bill. Their vision is embedded in its foundation. By working together, we are making significant strides on our shared path of reconciliation.

A representative for the Tsawwassen First Nation said that the commissioner for modern treaty implementation would help guarantee that governments are consistently held accountable, not just in words but in action.

This vision of a better Canada will help us be better treaty partners. The work that has been done is significant, and with this support, we are transforming our society for future generations.

Masì cho to the Land Claims Agreements Coalition co-chairs, Nisga'a Nation president Eva Clayton and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated president Jeremy Tunraluk, for their support. We are especially grateful for the guidance they provided while we engaged with the Tłı̨chǫ Government, the Tla'amin Nation, the Whitecap Dakota First Nation, the Maa-nulth treaty council and the Grand Council of the Crees. I look forward to their continued support as we work to advance this bill through to royal assent.

For over 20 years, modern treaty partners have been advocating for an independent oversight mechanism to hold the federal government accountable to its modern treaty commitments.

This bill is about accountability, trust and following through on our promises as a government. Today, we have an opportunity to respond to these calls and create a strong foundation for the ongoing work we will be doing together to overcome the challenges that modern treaty partners face across Canada.

Modern treaties have been fundamental to advancing reconciliation and shared economic prosperity with indigenous peoples for half a century. My perspective as a minister is shaped by my experience coming from the Northwest Territories. I know first-hand that progress is possible when there is real partnership and honest efforts. That depends on a solid foundation of respect and reliability. Earning and holding the confidence of indigenous peoples take ongoing work. They are things we must continue to do every day.

Over the past few years, we have made significant progress in codeveloping tools to improve the implementation of modern treaties in a way that reflects the essence of our partnership.

In 2023, we launched Canada's collaborative modern treaty implementation policy. We codeveloped this policy with modern treaty partners to support the full, effective and timely implementation of all modern treaties in Canada.

We co-developed the important bill that is before us today. Bill C‑10 will enable the appointment of an independent agent of Parliament tasked with holding the government accountable regarding its commitments, obligations and relationships arising from modern treaties.

We have seen the powerful results that modern treaties can deliver. The Nisga'a Nation, B.C.'s first modern treaty partner, holds its own elections in accordance with the nation's own constitution. Their community is seeing booming economic development and, just recently, is a partner on a major project under consideration of the Building Canada Act.

When they are implemented effectively, modern treaties are drivers of economic prosperity that can help to build a strong Canada. They support decision-making and land management and promote closer co-operation between the Crown and indigenous peoples on economic development projects.

In my home territory, the Tłı̨chǫ Government has invested in an all-season highway that connects remote communities. This infrastructure development is helping community members access health services and education, and promotes the growth of local businesses.

We see yet another example with the Gwich'in Renewable Resources Board. This board promotes sustainable use of land and resources while preserving traditional practices. It plays a leadership role so that the fish, forests and wildlife in the Gwich'in area remain healthy and sustainable. Its mandate is to work in the public interest, representing all the parties to their modern treaty.

I see hope and promise in this legislation, but I know the road to negotiating a modern treaty is not easy. In fact, in many cases, the process can take decades to complete. In Nisga'a Nation's case, it took more than a century of advocacy and nearly 20 years of formal negotiations with the Crown. This was a significant investment of time and effort that reinforces how important it is to follow through on Canada's modern treaty commitments.

In Canada, modern treaties are constantly evolving as laws and policies change. Clearly, they have real potential to promote social, cultural and economic progress for both indigenous partners and Canadians.

As I mentioned, I have seen how much progress can be made when we develop real partnerships and make honest efforts, and I believe that this is also true for economic development.

We are living in increasingly uncertain times, amid economic upheaval and rising global instability. Strong relationships with modern treaty partners are going to be essential to building Canada strong. Modern treaties cover more than 40% of Canada's land mass, including 80% of the north. This means that much of Canada's resource wealth lies on or under lands governed by modern treaty partners.

The only way that we can move forward with projects and development on these lands is to do so in co-operation with modern treaty partners and in accordance with our constitutional obligations. Indigenous partners have shown that they are willing and able to work with and guide Canada in stimulating economic development.

We want to build Canada strong. That means upholding our commitments and obligations agreed to in modern treaties. We need an economy that includes indigenous leadership and benefits everyone. Effective modern treaty implementation is a key part of this, and one that the commissioner would support. Improved implementation of modern treaties would go a long way to ensuring that indigenous communities can take part in economic growth. It would also help to ensure that indigenous partners in the north are well placed to contribute to Arctic security as we look to bolster our national defence capabilities in today's evolving landscapes.

The government is committed to fulfilling the spirit and intent of modern treaties. This means honouring our commitments and responsibilities, and advancing our common objectives. This bill embodies the importance of our unique modern treaty relationships.

The appointment of a commissioner for modern treaty implementation will ensure that this and future governments are held to account for the implementation of modern treaties. That is in keeping with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the action plan that our government committed to implementing in partnership with indigenous peoples.

I would like to take a moment to share a bit about what modern treaties are and the work the government is doing to support indigenous peoples on the path.

Beginning in 1975, Canada signed what are called “modern treaties” with first nations, Inuit and Métis rights holders. These agreements also often include provinces and territories. They articulate the relationship, objectives, specific obligations and responsibilities their signatories must achieve and fulfill. They can include rights and benefits relating to ownership of lands, self-government or employment, to name just a few examples.

The era of modern treaties began after the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its decision on the Nisga'a Nation's Calder case, acknowledging the existence of aboriginal title for the first time. This historic decision paved the way for modern treaties, recognizing indigenous peoples' inherent right to their lands.

At the same time in Quebec, another group was challenging the actions of the Crown. This was where the first modern treaty was negotiated, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, signed in 1975. The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement marked a turning point in Crown-indigenous relations, laying the groundwork for many modern treaties that followed.

We know that modern treaties can bring many economic benefits to communities and encourage indigenous participation in the Canadian economy. Treaties can also advance indigenous peoples' social, cultural and political autonomy and well-being.

Studies have shown that indigenous communities that sign modern treaties see improved socio-economic outcomes, including increased average annual incomes, reduced income inequality and higher educational attainment.

Today, there are 27 modern treaties in Canada covering more than 90 communities. As a modern treaty partner, Canada has made progress in upholding its commitments, but we recognize that more work needs to be done.

For over 20 years, modern treaty partners have been calling for greater oversight to hold the federal government accountable to its modern treaty obligations. This includes calls to develop a federal implementation policy. One of the main reasons for this policy is to address a general lack of awareness, understanding and action regarding modern treaty relationships, objectives and obligations on the part of the federal government. That is why, in February 2023, the Government of Canada took a step forward by launching Canada's collaborative modern treaty implementation policy.

The policy guides federal departments in fulfilling their modern treaty obligations, advancing treaty objectives and strengthening intergovernmental relationships. It promotes action, awareness and understanding to address the legacy of colonialism and transform federal culture and procedures.

As part of the policy, the intergovernmental leaders' forum was established in 2023, creating an opportunity for the Prime Minister, federal ministers and modern treaty and self-government leadership to come together and collaborate on shared priorities. Shortly after the collaborative modern treaty implementation policy came into effect, the government and modern treaty partners began taking steps to create the oversight mechanism. We achieved that goal by proposing the creation of the commissioner for modern treaty implementation.

One of this bill's key accomplishments is that it was developed with the indigenous partners who stand to be most affected by its passage.

Now that I have outlined how this bill was codeveloped, I would like to take the opportunity to discuss the broader role the commissioner would play as an agent of Parliament.

Agents of Parliament are independent of the government. They report directly to the Speakers of both Houses of Parliament and are the fundamental pillars of our democracy.

Right now, there is no agent of Parliament to promote and sustain our relations with indigenous peoples, who form the foundation of Canada.

As an agent of Parliament, the commissioner would provide us with a unique opportunity to establish a new parliamentary institution focused solely on modern treaties. They would help make Canada a better partner by shining a light on areas where we can do more to address persistent and structural issues related to modern treaty implementation. This agent of Parliament role would represent a major step forward, toward a future where indigenous partners can trust that Canada will follow through on its modern treaty commitments.

This is particularly important when we consider the strategic locations of our treaty partners, Canada's objective of building a stronger nation and the vital role that strong relationships play in our mutual success.

Modern treaty partners are truly our partners in Confederation.

Some of the commissioner's key roles and responsibilities would include providing independent and expert oversight of any activity carried out by the government relating to the implementation of modern treaties. They would seek to ensure the timely and effective implementation of modern treaties. They would report to Parliament to hold the government accountable to its modern treaty obligations. They would be independent, objective and impartial in the execution of their mandate and would have expert knowledge of modern treaties. They would have the authority to require departments to provide the information necessary to carry out their mandates. Finally, they would commit to upholding the spirit and intent of the agreements.

In short, the commissioner must ensure that the government honours its commitments under modern treaties and, most importantly, in the nation-to-nation, Crown-to-Inuit, and government-to-government relationships that they support.

I will close my remarks today with a few final thoughts on what this legislation means for the broader goal of advancing reconciliation.

Successive governments have continued to enter into modern treaties with first nations, Inuit and Métis to guide our relationships and protect and promote their culture, identity and future prosperity. We are on a shared journey of reconciliation.

We understand that reducing uncertainty and establishing strong partnerships with indigenous peoples can help build a stronger, fairer and more prosperous Canada.

We understand that Canada needs modern treaties in order to grow.

In these uncertain times, we need partners we can rely on. We know we can rely on our modern treaty partners, and we need them to be able to rely on us. Modern treaty partners are already driving innovation, investment and development on a scale that benefits not just their communities, but all of Canada. They are doing this despite the fact that Canada has not always made it easy for them and has not always lived up to its promises.

If this kind of success can happen despite persistent issues and inefficiencies in treaty implementation, I ask my colleagues in the House to imagine what we could accomplish together if we were able to solve these challenges. What could we accomplish together if these treaties were implemented effectively and in full? It is time for us to take action and find out. That means living up to our commitments to respect the inherent rights of indigenous people, it means living up to our commitments to advance reconciliation and it means passing the legislation before us today.

Once again, I would like to thank the modern treaty partners who stood up for their rights and worked tirelessly to co-develop this legislation.

The journey we embarked on together shows what is possible when trust, credibility, creativity, innovation and collaboration guide the codevelopment process. We are listening and working to fulfill all of our modern treaty obligations in the spirit of reconciliation and a brighter future for us all.

Let us pass the bill without delay.

Marsi. Meegwetch. Mahsi cho.

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

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we support modern treaties, the path to self-government and the path to economic reconciliation, and we wish to work with communities that want to see that happen. We support those initiatives.

However, the fact that the minister has to table a piece of legislation dealing with the modern treaty shows the failure of the government. In six years, Stephen Harper signed five modern treaties. The government has signed zero in 10 years. It has signed two self-government agreements, but it has signed zero modern treaties. Not only that, but we also have numerous Auditor General reports talking about treaties and the government's relationship with implementing those treaties.

The minister said, in her own words, that indigenous leaders are calling for more oversight, which we support, and that the government has not been living up to its promises. It has been decades. Why not hold the minister's department accountable instead of creating new bureaucracy?

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the parties opposite are looking forward to supporting reconciliation and modern treaty partners.

What is important in this bill is the implementation. It takes a while to negotiate land claims, self-government agreements and modern treaties, but implementation is a day in, day out, forever process. What is important in this legislation is holding the government, as well as future governments, accountable for living up to those modern treaty obligations.

The bill is really about increasing transparency for all Canadians. Instead of having only a minister being responsible, the commissioner would be accountable to Parliament, both to the House and to the Senate. It is a really important opportunity to ensure that we are focused on implementation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for introducing this important bill this morning. I should emphasize that this bill was co-developed, which is real progress. At the end of her speech, the minister reached out to us all when she used the word “together”. Let us allow that to inspire us in our work.

There is one issue that is important to me, though. She said in her speech that modern treaties are good for communities in terms of economic development and household income. This creates an inequality between first nations that have access to modern treaties and those that do not.

In my opinion, the minister should prioritize implementing new modern treaties. What has her department been doing in that regard? The commissioner position is important, but I gather people have been calling for it for 20 years. Why did it take so long? Why are more modern treaties not being signed?

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation is important for modern treaty partners, but it is also important that the focus of our government is not just on modern treaties. This is one part of our journey of reconciliation. Another is working with all first nations, Métis and Inuit rights holders across the country to address priorities and concerns. We hear regularly in meetings from chiefs about the need for improvements to our additions to the reserve process. I am working with my colleague at ISC to improve the process.

The bill is about modern treaties and their implementation, but we are continuing to work with all first nation, Métis and Inuit partners across the country to address their priorities and concerns.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for this really important work.

The member opposite just talked about how the Conservatives fully agree. That is a good thing. This is what Canadians want. Canadians elected us to pass legislation such as this in a quick and effective manner so that we can continue to serve Canadians. Conservatives have often voted against and even delayed bills that pertained to indigenous communities.

Can the minister talk about why it is important for the entire House to work together to pass this bill in a quick and effective manner?

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent work.

Joining us today in the gallery are many of the leaders of the modern treaty partners. In discussions I had with them this morning, they mentioned the importance of passing this bill quickly so that we have the opportunity to set up the commissioner's office as soon as we can. We are aiming to get this bill through Parliament as quickly as possible so that we can stand up the office and continue this work.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Before we continue, I want to remind everyone that members in the chamber cannot recognize members in the gallery; only the Speaker or presiding officers of the Speaker's chair can do so.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is very important legislation. I have heard from members of the Maa-nulth nations, who have signed a treaty, including Chief Anne Mack from Toquaht and Chief Wilfred Cootes from Uchucklesaht. They said this an essential oversight mechanism to help ensure the effective and timely implementation of modern-day treaties in terms of nation-to-nation, government-to-government and indigenous-to-Crown relations.

The NDP is wondering how we can move with all parties in this House to fast-track this legislation. Can the minister identify the conversations she is having with all parties so that we can move this legislation forward immediately?

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for breaching the rules.

We have been having discussions with all parties, and our partners have been in discussions with parties. We hope to get unanimous consent to move this bill forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, treaties have evolved. Foundationally, defining aboriginal rights and title is a main part of treaty negotiation, versus extinguishing them. Given that the Liberal government is going to appeal the Cowichan court ruling, is there a reason aboriginal rights and title are not mentioned in Bill C-10?

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the bill is about addressing the commissioner for modern treaties. It is about the responsibilities of oversight and holding the government accountable. The focus is on the commissioner ensuring transparency and accountability from the government on modern treaties.

The modern treaties speak to different issues, and the commissioner would be reporting on those issues, but there is no need to identify everything in the modern treaties. The commissioner would ensure they are being implemented.

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

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to enable the appointment of a commissioner, who will obviously keep an eye on what is happening in all branches of the federal government.

However, modern treaties also concern relations with the provinces. Giving first nations autonomy to develop on their territory has an impact on the role of the provinces.

Can the minister reassure us that the commissioner will have no ties to the provinces and will respect provincial autonomy, given the current Liberal government's drive toward centralization?

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, this bill concerns the federal government and its obligations. It is about accountability before the House of Commons and the Senate. It is between the federal government and its modern treaty partners.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, can the minister expand on who was involved in the codevelopment of this bill and why it was important to involve those people?

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, it involved all modern treaty partners. What is important is that they have first-hand experience so they can outline the challenges and successes that are occurring in the relationships between the federal government and modern treaty partners. It was important to involve modern treaty partners.

Of course, with respect to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, we wanted to ensure that this was co-created. We developed this modern treaty legislation, and we continue to work together on many other policies and legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about a matter that goes beyond the very foundation of this country: the relationship between the Crown and indigenous peoples. That relationship is defined not only by our history, but by our honour. It is tested not by words or new offices, but by actions. It is measured not by the number of new bureaucracies we create, but by the commitments we fulfill and the promises we keep.

For decades, governments have spoken of reconciliation, yet reconciliation without accountability remains a broken promise. The Liberal government’s proposed Bill C-10, an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation, simply provides cover for its decade-long history of broken promises to indigenous peoples. The new office of the treaty commissioner would tell us nothing that the Office of the Auditor General and many indigenous leaders have already told us: that the government continues to fail.

I want to speak plainly about where we are in implementing modern treaties in Canada, what progress has been made, where failures persist and how we can fix the system without creating another costly bureaucracy at a time when taxpayers can ill afford it. However, before we discuss implementation, it is important to define what we mean by modern treaties and self-government treaties.

A modern treaty is a comprehensive land claims agreement negotiated between a first nation, Inuit or Métis group and the Crown, which means the federal government and sometimes provincial governments, that settles outstanding aboriginal rights and land claims. The purpose of a modern treaty is to resolve long-standing disputes over land ownership, resource rights and governance in a defined territory. The scope of a modern treaty can include 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 are enforceable by federal law and generally replace or clarify rights under historic treaties.

A self-government treaty is an agreement, often part of a modern treaty, that specifically recognizes and establishes an indigenous government with the authority to make certain laws in areas similar to a provincial or municipal government. Its purpose is to grant indigenous groups the right to govern themselves, which includes control over education, health care, culture and local services. The scope focuses on political authority and administrative powers rather than on only land and 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.

Understanding these distinctions is crucial. Implementation is not about creating new offices or new bureaucracy; it is about ensuring the Crown and its departments respect the legal authority already established in those agreements. I should note that the recent Whitecap Dakota's self-government agreement, which passed with Conservative support in 2023, is not a full modern treaty. There remain outstanding issues, which I understand the government continues to negotiate on.

I wonder exactly how a future commissioner of modern treaty implementation would be able to magically motivate the government to get this done. Naming and shaming is one way, yes, but the ministers can do that themselves. The ministers of each and every department can hold their departments accountable for failures rather than creating another new bureaucracy.

We know it can get done. In fact, the Conservatives, under Prime Minister Harper, signed five modern treaties in a span of six years. In over a decade, the Liberals have negotiated none. The five modern treaties include the Tlicho first nation's land claims and self-government agreement that happened 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.

Make no mistake. I have said it once; I will say it again. The Conservatives support modern treaties. We support indigenous communities that want to get off the paternalistic and archaic Indian Act. What we do not support is the mistaken assumption that spending more taxpayer dollars compensates for the lack of accountability within government bureaucracy.

Who has been fired? Has anyone been fired for not living up to what the government signed? Have any departments done some reorganization because of the failures of the government to live up to its treaties? I have not heard that today in a speech.

How has the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations managed this internally? I know she is new. I get that she was elected just a few months ago, but this question still remains: How is a report from the new commissioner's office going to change things when dozens of Auditor General's reports on the failures of government have resulted in nothing moving forward?

The Office of the Auditor General conducts regular audits of treaty negotiations, modern treaties, self-government agreements, the implementation of them, and treaty land entitlements. Some of the audits include the 2005 report on the federal government meeting treaty land entitlement obligations, the 2006 report “Federal Participation in the British Columbia Treaty Process—Indian and Northern Affairs Canada”, the comprehensive “Audit of the Implementation of Modern Treaty Obligations” from 2013, and the 2016 report “Implementing the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement”. This does not even include the 14 Auditor General reports produced since 2015 on related issues facing first nations, Inuit and Métis.

Where are those reports? Has every government department been addressing the concerns tabled by the Auditor General? This is why indigenous leaders are calling for this legislation. Yes, they want to see more oversight, absolutely, but we think the failure is on the government. We think the government itself, within the bureaucracies, and the ministers themselves have not been pushing departments hard enough to live up to these modern treaties.

While governments continue to ignore the reports and audits from the Auditor General and continue to ignore treaty partners, there is still no collaborative modern treaty implementation policy, which happened in 2023. What would be a positive step forward considering the Liberal government is currently bogged down with 70 treaty negotiations, and two years later, it has not implemented anything?

Here is another crucial point. Implementation is not about new policies, new offices or new dollars going into bureaucracies. It is a question of whether current officials are doing their jobs, whether existing departments are held accountable and whether existing laws and commitments are enforced.

However, here we are today talking about a new office, a commissioner for modern treaty implementation, a multi-million dollar bureaucracy intended to monitor, oversee and report on implementation, an office that would not be entirely accountable to Parliament. The commissioner, government and treaty partners would decide when audits are conducted and how, not Parliament. Reports would be tabled by the minister a few weeks after they receive them, but Parliament would not have the power to initiate audits of the government's handling of modern treaty implementation.

With respect, that is the wrong approach. We do not need more bureaucrats. In fact, the Liberals really ought to learn from their past mistakes. Between 2015 and 2017, several new federal offices and initiatives were created to work on 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.

Since the creation of these offices, as I have said before, no modern treaties have been established by the government. There are six entities specifically designed to monitor, support and ensure the implementation of these treaties, and now we are supposed to believe that finally we have the magic bullet that will solve it all.

Again, maybe the answer is to start firing those who are not doing their jobs, who are not living up to the commitments the government signed and is obliged to do. There are reports creating dust on shelves. Why are we not just doing what those reports have outlined? We need ministers and officials to take responsibility for obligations we already have, whether in modern treaties, self-government provisions or historic agreements.

Since the 1970s, Canada has sought to move beyond the numbered treaties through the negotiation of modern treaties, which are comprehensive land claim agreements that establish self-government, define rights and confirm jurisdictional authority. Today, there are over two dozen modern treaties in force across Canada, from the Yukon and Nunavut to British Columbia, Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador. These agreements represent some of the most advanced models of indigenous government anywhere in the world, yet today, the situation remains uneven.

Some treaty nations have made substantial progress in self-government and economic development. Others remain entangled in administrative barriers, forced to negotiate or litigate and litigate again for the very rights they thought they had already secured. For many indigenous governments, the experience of treaty implementation has been one of delay and paternalism. Departments interpret treaty commitments inconsistently, and fiscal transfers are too often designed to preserve federal control rather than encourage and enable indigenous autonomy. This results in what leaders have called “the illusion of implementation”: the appearance of progress without the substance of change. A treaty signed is celebrated. A treaty implemented is where the government drags its feet.

Across Canada, indigenous and treaty partners continue to wait for commitments signed decades ago to be fulfilled. Implementation remains chaotic and delayed. Fiscal transfers are late or incomplete. Departments pass down responsibilities back and forth like a file that nobody wants to own. In 2024, the Auditor General reported again that the federal system remains fragmented, bureaucratic and unaccountable. One of the greatest challenges is that no single department or body holds full responsibility for ensuring Canada’s compliance with its treaty obligations. Responsibilities are fragmented across Indigenous Services Canada, Crown-Indigenous Relations, Justice Canada and the Treasury Board, just to name a few.

This bureaucratic mess means that when commitments go unfulfilled, no one is held accountable, not politically, not financially and not morally. Instead of holding those responsible accountable, the government proposes spending millions on a new office to supervise what should already be happening. How many offices do we need to tell the government that it is failing? Adding one commissioner does not change culture or performance. Only enforcement, accountability and clear expectations can. A lot of this, as I have mentioned many times in my speech, has been outlined in various reports already tabled in this House over decades.

The Supreme Court's 2024 ruling in Restoule v. Canada was a stark reminder of what is at stake. For nearly 170 years, the Crown failed to honour the Robinson Huron Treaty, failing to adjust annuities as promised. The court called this a violation of the honour of the Crown, not an oversight but a breach of trust, yet instead of ensuring that departments and ministers simply fulfill their obligations, now we hear talk of creating another bureaucracy to monitor implementation. The honour of the Crown is not measured by bureaucratic reports or new offices but by results on the ground: homes being built, clean water and indigenous policing being named an essential service, something that was promised years ago by former prime minister Trudeau, which still has not happened. Infrastructure is crumbling. Governance and economic opportunity are what indigenous leaders are calling for, and it is Canada that has failed to live up to those obligations.

We have built a system that celebrates the signing of those treaties, but nothing is happening to ensure that they are being upheld, despite the reports, despite the information, despite the studies and despite the conversations that we have on the ground with indigenous leaders themselves who are calling for this. What should change is ministers and departmental officials being held responsible for their legally binding obligations. That will change when we start firing people who are not doing their jobs. If a treaty commitment is delayed or ignored, someone must be held accountable, not an office on Wellington Street but the department itself, the minister and the leadership who signed those agreements.

Safety and basic services remain uneven. As I mentioned before, indigenous policing is underfunded, housing is substandard and climate-related disasters disproportionately impact indigenous communities. The Auditor General has talked about all of this. The Auditor General has also outlined ways to fix it. The commissioner would not build houses. The commissioner would not hire police officers. A commissioner would not ensure clean water.

What is required is executive responsibility and operational diligence. Departments must prioritize, budgets must be executed properly, and ministers must ensure that existing laws are followed. That is how results are delivered, not by another layer of bureaucracy.

Federal programs designed to support indigenous communities are often mismanaged. Hundreds of non-indigenous firms have falsely claimed indigenous status to win contracts. Oversight came way too late. Do not forget ArriveCAN. A commissioner would not prevent fraud; proper departmental controls, accountability and enforcement would.

Similarly, free, prior and informed consent is often ignored in practice. Consultation without power is meaningless. A commissioner cannot give departments the political will to respect indigenous sovereignty; only leadership and accountability can.

Therefore the solution is clear: Departments need to do their jobs. The authority, the responsibility and the obligation already exist; we simply need to enforce them. Ministers must be held accountable. If an obligation is unfulfilled, it is not a bureaucratic problem; it is a leadership failure. Parliament must ensure consequences.

Indigenous governments must be partners in oversight. They should hold departments accountable directly, without requiring another costly office. Performance must be measurable. Tracking, reporting and enforcement can be done with existing systems, and I have already named a bunch, if officials are mandated to act rather than to report on not acting.

Reconciliation is measured in results: homes built, clean water delivered, indigenous policing, economic opportunity and the integrity of our nation-to-nation agreements. We do not need another commissioner. We do not need more bureaucracy. We do not need another office to spend millions of taxpayer dollars when we are already running massive deficits. We need ministers, departments and public service officials to simply do what they are legally required to do. If we honour our treaties, if we enforce accountability and if we expect results, then reconciliation is not just possible; it is inevitable.

Let us act here in the House with integrity, with resolve and with honour. Let us ensure that every promise is kept, not with more bureaucracy but with the discipline to actually do our jobs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised by the approach the Conservatives have decided to take on the legislation, but I am somewhat disappointed in their approach with respect to having an agent of Parliament report to Parliament with a certain level of expertise that is understood clearly by indigenous communities and indigenous leaders across this nation, who recognize how valuable an individual of this stature could be. It is unfortunate that the Conservatives do not recognize that.

Could the member provide his thoughts as to whether he believes that the Auditor General would have the same background knowledge to bring to the table?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out, the Auditor General has done many reports, and I would say the expertise was accepted at the time as an expert dive into the issues Canada is or is not living up to with modern treaty implementation, or with existing treaties and the lack of the implementation of those treaties.

I mentioned reports from 2005, 2006, 2013 and 2016, plus 14 more, that talked about where the government is failing when it pertains to first nations, Inuit and Métis. There is plenty of information out there. There are plenty of reports. Why has the government not acted on the recommendations?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my special thanks to the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes for his very thorough speech.

In this context, I find it particularly interesting that the member refers to the five modern treaties that his government was able to conclude during the Conservative years under Mr. Harper. That is one treaty less than the six social housing units built at the time by the current leader of the Conservative Party.

That said, people have been calling for the creation of a modern treaty implementation commissioner for over 20 years. This bill was co-developed with more than 130 groups that were consulted. This period of more than 20 years obviously covers the 10 years of the Liberal government, during which nothing was done with respect to modern treaties, but it also covers the years under the Conservative government.

Why are the Conservatives opposed to the swift creation of the commissioner position and the passage of the bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work with my Bloc colleague on the indigenous and northern affairs committee.

I understand why indigenous leaders are calling for the office of a modern treaty commissioner, because the government has been failing to implement existing treaties for decades. The government fails to implement its word on modern treaties. However, I will say again that the Auditor General has already produced a slew of reports as to how we can fix the problems. The government just continues to ignore the results and the reports. As I asked in my speech, who has been fired in departments? Who has been held accountable in departments to finally see some action?

I do not blame indigenous leaders who want to see the office created. I do not blame them for their frustrations with the government at all, but I question where the accountability is on the government side.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was a negotiator for my small native band, as well as a chief councillor, so I understand the frustration of the leaders. However, it seems to me that the first nations leaders are saying that the government-to-government relationship is not working because the government is not listening and not implementing a treaty. The government's response is, “Let's create a treaty commissioner.”

Is there any chance of a commissioner's getting treaty implementation done, versus a leader's having gone directly to government for the last 10 years at least to try to solve that exact issue?

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend for Skeena—Bulkley Valley raises a good point. It is exactly a fear that I share with the member, which is that if the office is created and there is another report, and another report after that a few years later, about where the government is failing on modern treaty implementation, will the government actually pay attention to that? Will the departments actually fix what has been broken?

The problem I keep raising, and I think what my friend is getting to as well, is that the failures have been outlined for decades. Would a new office fix this? My fear is that it would not.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think my friend from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes and I have had an across-the-aisle exchange yet. I congratulate him on his re-election.

I would ask the member to please reconsider. There are a lot of reasons that those nations in this country, the indigenous nations that form the 26 modern treaties that have been signed and negotiated, have waited too long.

The bill before us was originally Bill C-77, which was introduced almost a year ago. It was allowed to die on the Order Paper. There is no point in going back over which parties are to blame for that, but now we must come together and get the bill passed. Can the member agree?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do support the fact that the government needs to live up to its modern treaty obligations. As I mentioned, the Harper government signed five in six years.

I would also point out to the member opposite that between 2015 and 2017, on top of the Auditor General's reports, which I have mentioned a million times, several new federal offices and initiatives were created to work on land claim implementation issues: the modern treaty implementation office, the assessment of modern treaty implications, the performance management framework, the modern treaty management environment and the deputy minister's oversight committee, as well as the reconciliation secretariat. How many more do we need before the government actually does its job?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that recognizing the nation-to-nation relationship between indigenous people and the Crown is of critical importance. There is legislation before us today that would ultimately enable an agent of Parliament who would report to Parliament, as opposed to just to the government or the opposition, and the Conservatives are making it very clear today that they oppose that.

Is it the Conservative Party's position that it will not support the bill's going to committee?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, the new office, as it is written, would report to Parliament. It would report to the Senate and to Parliament, but it would report to the government first, and the minister would then decide when the report would get to the Speaker and then be released to Parliament. Parliament would not have the opportunity to dictate where the audits go and what needs to be studied or examined. That is the problem the Conservatives have with it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague once again for his thoroughness and for the additional explanations he has provided during this question and comment period.

However, it is a bit contradictory to say that the role of commissioner is unnecessary but that he will support the bill anyway.

The Liberal government has absolutely nothing in its legislative agenda right now. We do not even know what we will be working on by the end of the week. Why is the member trying to save the Liberal government? Why not pass this bill quickly so it can be sent to committee where amendments can be proposed? Why not get it through the House as quickly as possible?

I would like my colleague to clarify that. Why is he so determined to defend this bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, yes, the bill will get to committee. We will study it, and I am pretty sure there will be amendments proposed. We will see what gets passed and what does not. We look forward to that process.

At the same time, however, we are in the chamber to debate, and the bill has been tabled. This is the first day it has been debated, so there are Conservatives members who want to speak to it.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I especially appreciate the emphasis my colleague has put on Conservative support for the reconciliation process with first nations, Métis and Inuit communities, and also the emphasis he put on the expense of creating another costly bureaucracy when families are struggling so hard to make ends meet.

The Auditor General's office is an independent institution that audits federal government operations to ensure accountability, transparency and the effective use of public funds. The proposed commissioner appears to do the same thing, without the concern of effective use of public funds.

Can the hon. member elaborate on the duplication?

[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—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member for Kenora—Kiiwetinoong.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is more typical Liberal legislation. I have had the honour of serving on the indigenous and northern affairs committee for many years now. Over and over, we have seen the government make big promises and then take very little action.

The member spoke about the 94 calls to action, but only 14 or 15 have been completed by the government. It made big promises on drinking water and did not follow through. In the fall of 2022, the government said that legislation was around the corner to make first nations policing services essential, and we are still waiting for that legislation. The same can be said for modern treaties. The government has achieved zero.

Why are the Liberals looking to create more bureaucracy and spend more, instead of just moving forward with modern treaties? They already have the power to do that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one thing I am always cognizant of is that at times there are political entities in the chamber that provide misinformation. We are close to having 20 of the recommendations completed. Not all 94 recommendations are federal responsibilities. For example, the Pope gave an apology. The federal government may have tried to influence the Pope, but it was the Catholic Church that ultimately had to deal with that particular recommendation.

Of the recommendations the federal government is responsible for, at least 80% are under process. We cannot just click our feet, wave a magic wand and have them completed. Many of the recommendations take years to complete.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives support modern treaties, but there are concerns that with this bill, the establishment of an independent commissioner and office would lead to more government bureaucracy. In his speech, my Conservative colleague from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes mentioned alternatives to prevent this.

How can the member opposite be certain that in the establishment of the commissioner position, no government bureaucracy will take place?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I spent a great deal of my time noting how, from an economic and social point of view, it is in our best interests collectively as parliamentarians, representing all of Canada, to ensure that we continue to make progress on indigenous relationships, nation to nation. I believe this legislation further advances that by ensuring that we have an official agent of Parliament to assist in pushing the government to take necessary actions.

I wanted to talk about Shoal Lake 40 First Nation, and I hope to get another opportunity to do so.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about making progress on these issues. I would point out that under a Conservative government, we signed six modern treaties, and that under 10 years of Liberal government, no modern treaties have been signed. Does the member think that is progress?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as the minister who introduced the legislation explained, it takes years to get a modernization project. I suspect that many of the modernization treaties that were signed by Stephen Harper began under Paul Martin. All one needs to do is look at Paul Martin's impact on the Kelowna Accord, something Stephen Harper opposed. Had Stephen Harper supported it, we would have seen a lot more support on the issues of housing, education and health, which really—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars back in 2005.

At the end of the day, I do not have a problem comparing records. All one needs to do is to look at the calls to action and look at our record.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague from Winnipeg North. He mentioned that true reconciliation is not limited to apologies. I would like him to explain to us today why his government is not repealing the Indian Act, a discriminatory, colonial and paternalistic law imposed on first nations. That piece of legislation embodies everything that stands in the way of true reconciliation.

Why, after all these years, has his government not taken steps to repeal the Indian Act?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

That is a really good question, Mr. Speaker. I have often thought that myself. When I talk to indigenous leaders and non-indigenous people who are trying to move that file forward, it is often raised.

I believe it is a fairly complicated issue, so I am not prepared to answer at this time. I do not have that level of expertise, but it is something that I too, from what I hear, would like to see disposed of. I wish it were that simple.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is from Winnipeg, which has a sizable indigenous population. He has been very engaged in consultation with members of his own community. What is the member hearing from those in his constituency and how would he expect that to apply across Canada?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the most prominent individuals I have had the pleasure of representing, who I believe has moved out of Winnipeg North, is the current national chief, Cindy Woodhouse, someone I classify as a personal family friend. She is a very powerful, strong voice for indigenous community members throughout the country. I have learned a great deal from her. It is one of the reasons I am an advocate for ensuring that we continue to push the envelope in dealing with reconciliation and getting the job done on certain projects, like the Shoal Lake 40 First Nation's Freedom Road. Do members know how long it waited for that to happen? There is also the water treatment plant at Shoal Lake to get rid of the boil water advisories.

We want to continue to advocate for good, healthy policy and budgetary measures.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary can highlight why it was so important for this legislation to come forward now and why we should pass it through the House as expeditiously as possible.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, as I said at the outset of my comments, this legislation is before us today because of the immense amount of work done over the years on identifying how we can further advance indigenous reconciliation. Having an agent of Parliament is something that indigenous community leaders and others, like me, believe will have a very profound and positive impact. It is a seven-year appointment of an individual who has incredible experience. Through that experience and knowledge, someone could make a difference, as Murray Sinclair did.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the member talk about economic issues tied in with social issues, because that is what first nations have been talking about for the last 20 years, at least. It is nice to see the Liberals kind of waking up.

We are talking about Canada's economy as well, which the member also mentioned. The Nisga'a have had a treaty with the government for 20 years. They opposed Bill C-48, the tanker ban, but the Liberal government ignored them. Is the ignoring of treaty bands, especially on the west coast of British Columbia, going to continue?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on his first comments, I would refer the member to the Paul Martin Kelowna Accord, in which there were solid commitments that dealt with education, employment and living conditions. A lot of consultations were done then.

With regard to the other part of the member's question, I would, in return, ask a question: Was there unanimous consent among indigenous community leaders in B.C. that the ban was not the appropriate thing to do?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are here talking about the creation of a treaty implementation commissioner. Here is some background. I was the chief councillor of the Haisla Nation Council for six years, and prior to that, I was a councillor for eight years. During that eight-year period, I was treaty chairman under the B.C. treaty process; I was negotiating the treaty, so I read all the announcements over the last 20 years, went to all the meetings and read all the reports and the different positions being created to address very simple issues.

For those who do not understand the treaty and how it has evolved, the treaty is basically a formal agreement signed between B.C., Canada and first nations, and has evolved to formalize aboriginal rights and title, and underneath that, case law that established, in the courts of B.C. and Canada, reconciliation. That term is used loosely all over Canada, especially by politicians, for everything under the sun, but when we look at case law, we see that “reconciliation” has a meaning: It is how to marry aboriginal rights and title interests with Crown interests, meaning legislation and regulations.

Under undefined rights and title, which is what we are finding in cases like that of Cowichan, for example, it is complicated, I will admit, but a treaty defines rights and title in a very prescriptive manner, including implementation. There are implementation provisions in modern-day treaties. Why would we create another position, another level of bureaucracy, when implementation is already spelled out in the modern-day treaties?

I have heard the awakening speeches from the Liberal members that talk about social issues tied with economic development issues, which is great. I am glad they have finally woken up to that reality, especially in first nations regions, because we have been talking about that for the better part of 20 years. Before the 2004 court case came along, first nations really did not have a seat at the table. It was the Haida court case of 2004 that defined the role of the Crown in dealing meaningfully with aboriginal rights and title interests, even if it had not been proven. By the way, the Haisla first nation, where I come from, intervened in that court case.

The Haida court case turned things around for my band. We went from being one of the poorest first nations communities in B.C. to being one of the wealthiest and most successful. More importantly, we resolved poverty and unemployment. All those social issues, including the violence of poverty, started to go away. I am incredibly proud of that. In fact I would love to see some type of report done on that. My band is not talking about the social issues that many other first nations are talking about anymore, just because we engaged in the economic fabric of Canada and B.C.

However, it is the politics that have held us back, the legislation created in places like this and in Victoria that many people do not understand and do not follow. I do not blame them, especially today. They are out there trying to make life more affordable and trying to find a job, especially our young people, who are reaching higher levels of unemployment. They have their own issues.

I believe that part of my job is to describe what is happening here in terms of legislation, and to describe how it affects the individual, which is extremely hard. A lot of people think, “Implementation of treaty is such a great thing. They are going to create a commissioner.” Well, a commissioner has no authority. What the commissioner would do is take the decades of complaints from first nations, formulate them into a report and give it to government.

Then, if government repeats its past behaviour, it will ignore the report or come up with some type of word-salad speech, just for the perception that it is actually doing something, when really, first nations leaders are coming to the table in good faith, not only to resolve their issues but also to sign a treaty. They are moving from a place of undefined aboriginal rights and title that requires consultation, and they think they are moving into an arena where they are going to be treated as an equal partner to Canada and B.C.

The Nisga'a Nation, in my region, has had a treaty for over 20 years. Its members were the first to complain of the tanker ban that restricted their economic future. They are a treaty partner of Canada, but Canada did it anyway. To be clear, the Nisga'a were not supporting the transport of oil; they just thought that the treaty outlined specific roles and responsibilities between their treaty nation and the Government of Canada. That is all they wanted. They expected more, because the provisions of the treaty said so.

For treaty bands, unless they are gifted with location as an asset, it is really tough to implement a loan by themselves without an economic base. For some treaty bands that are close to urban centres, an economic base is not that much of a problem, especially if land values are high, such as in Vancouver. However, for remote bands that sign on to a treaty, there are provisions in the treaty where, at some point, they are going to have to get off government funding.

The whole point of signing on to a treaty is to formalize an agreement between Canada and B.C., but also to get away from Indian Act funding. Everybody talks about dependence. Well, for the most part, the Indian Act is irrelevant; nobody is going to enforce those archaic provisions, but the funding agreements still hold first nations dependent on government funding.

Treaty bands get government funding as well, but there are provisions where they have to develop their own source of revenue, which is really hard to do. If we think about a typical band with maybe 800 people on reserve and 800 off reserve, its funding agreement probably amounts to $7 million or $8 million a year; I have been away from council for quite a while, so I am not quite sure, but the provisions of the treaty expect them to replace that funding and be independent of government funding.

There are also extra costs, because Indian Act funding is formulated in such a way that first nations do not really get the entire cost covered by Indian Act funding. If they need $100, the Indian Act will provide $70, and they have to figure out the rest. That goes for water, sewers, administration and health, so first nations are continuously trying to make up the difference.

By the way, under the Indian Act, if a first nation produces a deficit, it will get punished. There will be clawbacks, by a cessation of programs, for example. However, here is the thing: In certain funding agreements under the Indian Act, if a first nation produces a surplus and it is not entirely under the criteria of what government expects, it also gets punished. First nations cannot win under the Indian Act agreement, so it is no wonder they are trying to find a way out, whether that is by leveraging their aboriginal title to be engaged in economy to create their own source of revenue, or by signing a treaty. Either way, first nations leaders are still trying to resolve one central thing: How do they resolve poverty and all the violence that accompanies it?

This is not new. I became treaty chairman in 2003. I used to go to the summit meetings in Vancouver, in Musqueam. They were talking about this back then, not only in terms of implementing a signed treaty but actually in terms of the provisions that we were negotiating at the time. I do not see how a commissioner would change this, when it would be just another office to pass the message on to government that “hey, government, you are not doing your job”, which is what it boils down to.

Liberal members have been getting up and talking about a new era of partnership and building an economy to combat Trump's tariffs. Why, then, have they opposed economic development for the last 10 years? Why did they create Bill C-69? Why did they create Bill C-48? We have already heard energy experts saying that we cannot be an energy superpower without oil and gas, that our dependence as a country on the United States, taking our own gas at a discount, is not only going to limit our ability to diversify our economy but will also limit us in becoming an energy superpower.

First nations are already there; we have been there for the last 20 years. If we look at the Haida court case of 2004, we see there is a specific clause that says there is an economic component of rights and title that must be respected. That is in relation to the land.

First nations get it. They have to make a trade-off, and they have been willing to make that trade-off. They have a specific parcel of land, and in their past practices it might have been subject to ceremonial purpose, food gathering, hunting or fishing. They get it, but they are also looking at the ravages of poverty, especially on reserve, and even, for that matter, off reserve, so first nations have been pushing for economic development in all sectors as much as they could. Who stops them? The Liberal government stops them with its legislation.

I already outlined the Nisga'a Treaty, with the government's partner that has a higher level than just consultation of aboriginal rights and title because it has defined rights and title. The first nation signed a constitutionally protected document with Canada and B.C. that said that the Nisga'a Nation is a partner of Canada and B.C. The leaders did it not just for the glory of signing a treaty; they thought they could build a better future for their people, and they are doing a great job.

At the same time, every modern-day treaty agrees to abide by the laws of B.C. and Canada. This is called the paramountcy of laws. They are agreeing to that, meaning that if someone goes onto treaty territory of a modern-day treaty, they are not going to come into a brand new country with the old set of laws regarding speeding or crimes. They trade their undefined rights and title for that because they want to be a partner.

Most first nations leaders see that the issues we are facing as aboriginals are the same issues all Canadians are facing right now. We are in this together. Like a judge said, let us face it: None of us are going anywhere. First nations want better medical services just like everybody else. They want better highways and better schools. Treaty bands are subject to taxation. They do not want higher taxes, and if they do submit taxes, they want to see those taxes being used responsibly, just like non-aboriginals in Canada do.

Therefore, somehow the new-found idea of partnership with the first nations in economic development for Canada, coming from the Liberals, sounds disingenuous given the past 10 years, but it is more important than ever. It is more important because as we go into a limited economy stifled by legislation and regulations, combined with unmanageable deficits with no plan to pay off the debt, Canada is going down a dangerous road. I can say, as an aboriginal coming off reserve, that I cannot believe there are not more people talking about this.

Other countries have proven what happens when decisions are based entirely on politics. We think the cost of living is bad now, but if we go to a place like Venezuela, which bases its entire system on politics, it is now selling its resources for pennies on the dollar. People there need a wheelbarrow of cash just to buy a loaf of bread.

Governance is serious stuff, and I do get the politics. I understand it, but if we keep making political decisions and not thinking about the present day and future of our country, Canadians will pay for that for decades, for generations.

We are talking about treaty implementation. When I was a treaty negotiator and a chief councillor, it was made clear to me that decisions are to be made based on seven generations in the future. We did not have the luxury of spinning the truth, or at least I did not. Maybe I did have the opportunity, but I did not go down that road.

Yes, a lot of my policy decisions were not liked, but I was doing what I did for a reason. There were issues I wanted to resolve. I also wanted to leave a better place for my descendants. It turns out that LNG Canada was a good decision, even though politicians rejected it. For decades, the B.C. NDP made outrageous claims about why LNG was bad. They were saying that if LNG was approved, Victoria would be under water. The Liberals said that there was no business case for LNG and told that to Germany.

Meanwhile, we were waving from over here, saying, “Hey, wait a minute. We have LNG in Canada, in our territory.” We had Chevron, which was chased out. That was a $30-billion project. It was chased out. There were 18 projects in B.C., and all but three left.

The Liberal government is talking the reverse side of it now, saying that we need an economy, we need LNG and maybe we will become an energy superpower, but it is not going to talk about how it will do that. The government says that it will build oil pipelines but that it is not going to build oil pipelines. All this mixed messaging, wordsmithing and truth spinning is going to hurt Canadians.

This existential crisis that Trump created is not an opportunity for more politicking. It is a time to think about us as a country. Where did we come from? It is a pretty messy picture when one talks about where we came from in terms of aboriginal interests. I acknowledge the past and understand the wrongdoings, but I learned a long time ago that it is better to build a future. It is easy to tear down.

The Liberals have already torn down our economy by saying no to oil tankers on the west coast of B.C., even though there are tankers coming down the west coast of British Columbia on a daily basis from Alaska to Washington state. There is no mention of that. By the way, Washington state will refine some of the oil it gets from Alberta into gas, diesel and jet fuel and sell it back to Canada for incredible profits.

The United States has become an energy superpower for exporting oil and gas for domestic purposes and export. Where do they get a large part of their supply? They get it from Canada, at a discount. Treaty first nations are there; they have been begging for the government to stop ignoring them. All we are saying to the government is to do its job and not create another level of bureaucracy for a message to come from the commissioner to the government to tell it to do its job. First nations want to build Canada, just as everybody else does. Canada should just do its job.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-10 is part of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act's action plan. This, as the member would most certainly know, specifically protects the rights of indigenous peoples to their culture, identity, language, employment, health, education and natural resources.

Notwithstanding the fact that, in 2021, every single Conservative member voted against the adoption of UNDRIP, could the member opposite please tell us how important it is to apply the principles of UNDRIP when working with indigenous peoples?

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

Mr. Speaker, the principles are important, but not to the point of ignoring the Haida court case from 2004 or ignoring treaty first nations. The government is using UNDRIP as a cover to say that Bill C-48 is basically needed. It is not needed, especially when first nations are trying to resolve poverty.

I put this back to the member: How does the government's UNDRIP legislation resolve poverty?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member represents a large rural riding in northern British Columbia, just two ridings over from northern Alberta. I appreciate his comments immensely.

He talked about the treaty relationships we have around the world and getting out from underneath the Indian Act. It is a mantra I think all parties in the House talk about: getting folks out from underneath the Indian Act.

I was wondering if the member could explain a little more what that would look like for his particular community.

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

Mr. Speaker, development of resources, such as forestry, mining and LNG, has actually brought in a lot of revenue, employment and training. I already mentioned that, to me, the Indian Act has become irrelevant and archaic, except for the funding agreement.

We segregated Indian Act programs and funding into Indian Act bureaucracy through departments of my band council. However, we created a new structure to deal with government, any kind of development and politics. That really turned it around for us.

This was in a short time frame. Within 10 years, we basically no longer needed Indian Act funding. The social issues started to decrease on their own with no intervention from our band council, or government for that matter.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that my colleague's speech was not so much about Bill C‑10 as it was about how passionate he is about oil development in his province. Good for him, if that is something that is important to him. However, it seems to me that the bill before us is the main topic of discussion.

The government does not have a particularly good record when it comes to respecting indigenous rights, particularly with the passage of Bill C‑5 last spring. Indigenous groups spoke out about that bill in every possible way, but the government forced it through anyway.

I would like to hear my colleague's opinion on respect for indigenous rights, because the current government does not seem to respect them. I wonder if the Conservatives, if they came to power, would respect them any more.

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

Mr. Speaker, that was a great question. In fact, it was the Liberals' speeches that actually guided me toward economic development issues, such as forestry, mining, and oil and gas. I agree with my colleague that, over the last 10 years, I have not seen the Liberal government giving respect to first nations members regarding their rights.

By the way, I am talking about the rights as defined in the Haida court case from 2004. As Conservatives, we fully respect and will honour that court case. I can tell members that. It actually has all the answers, as opposed to what is being proposed by Bill C-10.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is frustrating to hear my hon. colleague, who is also from British Columbia, repeating some of the selective amnesia of his fellow members on the other side of the aisle around just how much development has happened in our province over recent years.

Despite the member's assertions otherwise, there have been at least four major energy projects, including two major pipelines; a major LNG facility, which I know the member knows well; and the Site C dam have all been constructed in B.C., with a value that the Vancouver Board of Trade estimates at around $80 billion for British Columbia's economy.

Notwithstanding, the issue I question the member on is whether he will accept the view of coastal first nations in our province, who have said very clearly just in the last week that they do not support a project from Alberta that is as yet completely unspecified being built to the B.C. coast.

The member is clear and correct in his assertion of first nations' rights and title. He is deeply experienced on this file. Will he respect the rights and title of coastal first nations in B.C.?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is basically what the Haida court case of 2004 clearly defines. I will make it clear: It is the community that owns the rights and title; it is not a collective of first nations. It is not even their leadership, unless the community itself decides who the leadership will be.

By the way, the Liberals talk about respecting aboriginal rights and title interests. Why did you approve Bill C-48 when you knew full well that Nisg̱a’a Treaty Nation opposed treaty implementation? You did not say anything about that in your press releases, and you still have not addressed it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I just want to remind all members to address their comments and questions through the Chair.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kenora—Kiiwetinoong.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague's sharing his experience as an elected member of this place, of the provincial legislature and, of course, in his nation as well. He brings a wealth of experience and knowledge.

I wonder if he has more commentary on the pattern of the Liberal government in making big promises and bringing in very little follow-through afterwards. It is looking, once again, to create more bureaucracy and throw more money at an issue that it has the power to address very well right now. I wonder if my colleague has any other thoughts on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, the provisions of a treaty already define what the government is supposed to do, not only in terms of the federal government but also in terms of the provincial government and the first nations as well. It defines what their roles and responsibilities are now. This has always been a one-way street, though. First nations have always gone to governments and asked if they can implement the treaty as outlined in the treaty. They asked if they could do that, and it has always been ignored. My point about appointing a treaty commissioner is to ask, is this another level of bureaucracy the government intends to ignore?

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech suggests that he has experience in this area. However, I would like him to clarify something for me. There is a contradiction between the Conservative Party's intentions and actions today and what we saw in June. The government introduced Bill C-5 in June. The Conservatives supported this bill concerning projects of national interest, but not just any old way. A gag order was imposed after the new government had been in power for just four weeks, and the official opposition supported it. That has not happened very frequently in Canadian history.

Bill C-5 has been criticized, particularly by indigenous communities, because there was no prior consultation. They were simply sent a document and given five days to respond and say whether they were okay with it.

I would therefore like my colleague to explain something. If there is a genuine desire for reconciliation, why did his party support a bill that was drafted without consulting first nations? This bill concerning major projects of national interest will have a huge impact on first peoples.

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

Mr. Speaker, basically, yes, we supported it, but we wanted to put protections in, which we debated and we got in. By the way, I do not blame the first nations for their distrust of this, because one day, the government said first nations do not have a veto. I suspect it got that out of the case law, specifically, the Haida court case of 2004. However, the very next day, when it got political push-back, it said it would not do anything without first nations' consent. It then added it would not do anything without national consensus. In both cases, this was not defined.

I think we all agree that we all have to build up the economy. We have to get away from the tariffs, and we have to actually rebuild our economy for the sake of Canadians.

[Shannon Miedema, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Yellowhead.

Kwe. Ullukkut. Taanshi. Hello. I would like to begin by honouring the Algonquin Anishinabe nation, on whose traditional, unceded and unsurrendered territory Canada’s Parliament is established.

I am honoured to rise and speak today in support of Bill C-10, which would establish a commissioner for modern treaty implementation. The bill has strong support from modern treaty partners, and its introduction is an important step forward on the path of reconciliation. At its core, it is an opportunity to turn shared priorities into shared progress.

To better understand this opportunity, I will speak about how we got to where we are today. That means looking back at the history that shaped our present reality and the history of treaties in Canada. I will also discuss what a modern treaty is and why we have faced calls to improve their implementation, accountability and oversight for more than 20 years.

Treaties have long been the foundation of the relationship between the Crown and indigenous peoples. For example, in the 18th century, the peace and friendship treaties were intended to re-establish peace and trade after conflicts. Meanwhile, the treaties signed after 1763 over first nations territories opened up much of Canada to non-indigenous settlement in return for recognition of specific rights, annuities and goods, among other benefits. The treaties from this period and into the 1920s are referred to as historic treaties.

I would like to take a moment and say that last Wednesday was Treaty Day for all of Mi'kma'ki. In Nova Scotia, we had a flag-raising at the lieutenant-governor's house, which was very well attended. I saw the framed document, which is now 300 years old, in that house. It was a truly special moment.

As members know, during the historic treaty period, Canada adopted colonial, paternalistic policies that inflicted harm on indigenous peoples. These are painful truths that we now acknowledge as part of our ongoing journey of reconciliation. Decades later, Canada entered the modern treaty era of treaty-making. While modern treaties are distinct from historic treaties, they remain a foundational part of the relationship between the Crown and indigenous peoples.

I am now going to explain some of this history.

The modern treaty era began in 1973 with the Supreme Court decision of Calder et al. v. Attorney-General of British Columbia. This case centred around the Nishga Tribal Council in British Columbia, which sought recognition of the title to lands its people had historically inhabited. Until 1951, the Indian Act made it illegal for indigenous communities to use band funds to support any litigation or claim, making it difficult to pursue the title to the land.

Nishga Chief Frank Calder brought the case to the courts. The case was first rejected by the Supreme Court of British Columbia and then by the Court of Appeal of British Columbia. The Nishga Tribal Council escalated the case to the Supreme Court of Canada, where, at trial, it lost the case by one vote based on a technicality in the judicial process. Although the Nishga Tribal Council did not reach the outcome it sought, the decision led to the Government of Canada’s first land claims policy concerning the settlement of land claims by groups seeking title rights to land. This new policy would be important when Canada entered into the first modern treaty with the James Bay Cree.

Around the same time as the Nishga and the Calder case, Hydro-Québec sought to develop land claimed by the James Bay Cree without consulting the indigenous people inhabiting it. In response, the first nation partnered with the Indians of Quebec Association to negotiate with the Province of Quebec, though without success. Later, with the help of the Northern Quebec Inuit Association, the case was escalated to the Superior Court of Québec. Eventually, the James Bay Cree and the Inuit of northern Quebec signed a modern treaty with the Government of Canada and the Province of Quebec. The implementation of that treaty began 50 years ago, on November 11, 1975. The treaty permitted Hydro-Québec’s development of the land, and the Cree and Inuit inhabiting the territory were offered an acknowledgement of their rights to the land. This first modern treaty was a landmark for indigenous peoples across Canada, setting a new precedent in treaty-making.

In 1982, there was another landmark that proclaimed and affirmed the rights of indigenous peoples in Canada: the Constitution Act of 1982. Notably, it was forward-looking, acknowledging that additional rights and freedoms could be defined by indigenous peoples in the future through land claims settlement.

Despite this progress, tensions and disagreements persisted. To find solutions, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples was established to find ways to rebuild the relationship. It spent five years studying the relationship between the Government of Canada and indigenous peoples and found that the federal government lacked policy oversight and needed better guidance on land claims other than through the courts. The commission proposed that an implementation office be established to oversee the government's treaty claims, self-government accords and other obligations. At the heart of these recommendations was the need for the “foundations of a new relationship”. This included calls for improved review and oversight of modern treaties.

Since then, the Government of Canada has faced many calls to improve modern treaty implementation. For instance, in 2003, an Auditor General report outlined the findings of an audit that studied the department's management of and accountability in its transfer of responsibilities to the Yukon, as well as land claim agreements. The report found that there was a “lack of performance reporting” measures and “ineffective implementation”.

The Auditor General published a report in 2007, four years later, on the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. The report noted the “absence of a formal structure” to oversee implementation, a “lack of a strategic approach” to implement its modern treaty obligations and a lack of monitoring of how Canada fulfilled these obligations. It also noted an inconsistency in the vision between the Government of Canada and claimants regarding their respective roles and responsibilities.

Most striking was the recommendation from the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples that said the Government of Canada immediately begin to establish, in collaboration with modern treaty partners, an independent commissioner for modern treaty implementation. A similar call was included in the calls for justice detailed in the final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. The report called on the Government of Canada to immediately implement and comply with the calls from international and human rights bodies to establish treaty-monitoring bodies such as the one we are discussing here today.

To summarize, since the beginning of the modern treaty era in Canada, the federal government has been called upon to improve accountability and oversight. Today, we have the opportunity to make history by responding to those calls, fully committing to honouring the relationships and fully meeting the obligations enshrined in modern treaties. Modern treaty partners strongly advocated for the introduction of this bill, and modern treaty partner leadership named establishing the commissioner as a top priority during the Land Claims Agreements Coalition conference that was held in February this year.

It is important to remember that modern treaties are about moving the Government of Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples forward. The social, cultural and economic growth driven by modern treaties creates opportunities for indigenous partners and all people in Canada. It is also central to the one Canadian economy act, which would integrate indigenous leadership into national infrastructure and climate planning.

I ask the members of this House to vote yes on this legislation. I ask them to vote yes on responding to 20 years of calls for greater accountability and transparency in modern treaty implementation and vote yes on living up to the promises enshrined in modern treaties in our laws and Constitution. I ask them to vote yes on a stronger and more resilient Canadian economy, underpinned by thriving indigenous communities and meaningful Crown-indigenous collaboration.

I ask them to vote yes on Bill C-10, the commissioner for modern treaty implementation act.

Meegwetch. Qujannamiik. Marsi.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on her election to this place.

What is striking about this bill is that it is really not necessary. The government has the power right now to bring forward and deal with modern treaties. The past Conservative government got six modern treaties signed.

After 10 years of the tired Liberal government, I wonder if the member can share what exactly has prevented the Liberals from doing this work to this point, because the power is in their hands.

[Shannon Miedema, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the need for this commissioner comes from the relationship that we have now and are continuing to grow with our indigenous partners across this country. This bill was in the last Parliament and up for debate, but it did not get passed.

We have been asked specifically to consider passing it without amendment, because it is a top priority. Part of a healthy relationship is listening to the people in that relationship, and this is very much wanted. It would hold the government to account and it would have a very big role in transparency.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. She referred to a key word, namely “accountability”. There is something I would like her to clarify for me: Where is the accountability in this bill?

The new commissioner will have the power to analyze but not the power to compel action. This means that the commissioner would be able to paint a picture of the government's shortcomings but would not be able to change anything. It is like hiring a referee but not even giving them a whistle.

Could my colleague explain something to me? Could it be that the Liberals are afraid of implementing actual mechanisms for holding them accountable for their actions?

[Shannon Miedema, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty clear from some of the details in the bill that there are not teeth like there are in a court. This is more about holding the government to account, being transparent, making sure that we are what we have committed to doing in this relationship, and progressing truth and reconciliation in this country.

The bill is not intended to have those teeth, but it is intended to be a positive step forward in guiding us on this journey we are all taking together.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's advocacy. She is a very powerful speaker, I must say, and has taken a responsible position on Bill C-10.

Let us be very clear. There is an opposing viewpoint. The Conservatives tend to believe that the Auditor General of Canada will suffice, and that we do not need this legislation.

Would having an independent agent who has background experience in dealing with the whole issue of reconciliation and these modern treaties be of great value to Parliament? By establishing the commissioner, all of Canada would benefit from having an advocate who has a special focus on this issue. Would she not agree?

[Shannon Miedema, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I 100% agree that we need this independent commissioner, who would be chosen in collaboration with our indigenous partners, with whom we have been working on this for so long.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to clarify something for me in terms of words and actions. She speaks of reconciliation and transparency and yet, in June, this government tabled Bill C‑5 without first consulting indigenous communities, for which it was criticized.

How can we trust a government that completely ignored indigenous communities only a few months ago but is now saying that it wants true reconciliation?

[Shannon Miedema, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we have been consulting indigenous communities across this country on Bill C-5. We have been in these conversations for months now. I disagree with that statement.

[William Stevenson, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak in strong opposition to Bill C-10, the so-called commissioner for modern treaty implementation act.

Let me begin by stating what should be obvious but often gets lost in the noise of the Liberal government's grandstanding: Conservatives support treaty rights. We support the process of reconciliation with Canada's first nations, Inuit and Métis people, not just in word but in meaningful action, and we have the record to back that up. Under Prime Minister Harper, five modern treaties were successfully negotiated in just six years. These were not symbolic gestures; they were real agreements that advanced indigenous self-government and secured land and government rights that had been long delayed.

Contrast that with the current Liberal government: zero modern treaties negotiated in over a decade in office. That is not progress; it is paralysis, and the Liberal record is shameful. Now, after years of doing nothing, the Liberals are suddenly telling Canadians that the answer to their own failure in bureaucracy is another office, more Ottawa insiders and a new commissioner who, let us be honest, would duplicate work that is already being done by the Office of the Auditor General.

My riding of Yellowhead is home to seven indigenous communities and is located on Treaty 6, Treaty 7 and Treaty 8 lands. These are proud nations with deep roots, strong traditions and growing aspirations. I have had the opportunity to meet with leaders and members of the communities since my election this spring. What they need is not another report from another commissioner; what they need is for government to do its job. Imagine what an estimated $2.6-million annual budget for the proposed office could accomplish in indigenous communities in my riding and across the country.

Throughout the country, indigenous communities need housing, better infrastructure and clean water, something the government has promised but has repeatedly failed to deliver. They need the federal government to live up to existing treaty commitments, not to kick the can down the road while claiming moral high ground from behind a new desk in Ottawa. Bill C-10 is not about reconciliation; it is about political theatre.

Let us take a closer look at what the bill would actually do. It would create a new agent of Parliament, the so-called commissioner for modern treaty implementation. This commissioner would write reports, table findings and issue recommendations, but as we have already heard today, would not have any authority to enforce anything. The kicker is that the reports would go to the minister first, the same minister who is failing to implement the treaties in the first place, before the reports are even tabled in the House. That does not sound very transparent to me.

Proponents of the bill, including many indigenous stakeholders, have expressed support, saying it would improve accountability. I respect their voices and their opinions on the legislation. I also respect their frustration. After a decade of broken promises from the Liberal government, I understand the desire for any measure that might force Ottawa to pay attention.

However, we need to be honest about what the bill is. It is not real accountability; it is bureaucratic theatre, and it comes with a price tag. We are told the new office would cost $10.6 million over four years, employing about 15 full-time bureaucrats. That may not sound like much to the big spenders on the other side of the House, but let me remind them that Canadians are hurting right now. Inflation is out of control. Families across Canada are struggling to heat their home, fill their gas tank and put food on the table.

These struggles are not exclusive to indigenous communities, nor are they exclusive to communities in my riding. Every member of the House sees the impacts of Liberal spending in their riding and hears about the needs of their constituents on a daily basis. As a CPA, I have seen first-hand the effects of increased Liberal taxes on my community. Small businesses are drowning in red tape. The Liberal government's solution is to spend millions more dollars creating yet another office in Ottawa. This is not common sense; this is Liberal nonsense.

Let me remind the House that we already have a respected independent institution that audits federal indigenous programs and treaty obligations: the Office of the Auditor General. Since 2005, that office has issued over twenty reports on everything from treaty land entitlements to self-government agreements and to the implementation of modern treaties. As a new member of the public accounts committee, I am dismayed to learn how so many of these reports and recommendations have gone unimplemented.

Although I have been assigned to the committee for only a short time, I have seen time and again that the work is being done. The Auditor General and her office are spending time and money to dig into the issues and to table reports in Parliament, yet again and again, their tangible recommendations that the government cannot bother to follow through on are ignored. In fact some of the most damning evidence of the government's failure has come from the Auditor General's reports.

What has the Liberals' response been? It has not been action or implementation but more delay, more excuses and now more bureaucracy. Creating a new commissioner would not hold government to account; it would just add a middleman. What we need is not more paper; we need more performance. We need ministers and departments to do the job they are paid to do, with no more shifting of blame or hiding behind reports. They should just do their job.

I want to speak directly for a moment to the indigenous leaders and communities in Yellowhead and across the country. I hear them, I see their frustration, I know they are tired of waiting, and I know they have heard a lot of promises from governments of every stripe, with too few results. We do not need more layers of government to make good on its obligations. Government just needs to take leadership. We need accountability and action.

Conservatives are committed to advancing reconciliation through real results, negotiated agreements, infrastructure development and ensuring that indigenous communities have the tools they need to succeed on their own terms. Reconciliation is not served by bloating the bureaucracy in Ottawa; it is served by empowering indigenous communities at home.

The Liberal approach to reconciliation has become performative and bureaucratic, and Canadians are seeing through it. Bill C-10 is not a solution; it is a diversion. It is a smokescreen for a government that has failed to act. It is a press release disguised as policy. It is, ultimately, a waste of time, energy and taxpayer money that would be better spent actually implementing the treaties we already have

On June 11, 2008, former prime minister Stephen Harper said the following about the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, during the government’s apology to former students of Indian residential schools:

It will be a positive step in forging a new relationship between aboriginal peoples and other Canadians, a relationship based on the knowledge of our shared history, a respect for each other and a desire to move forward together with a renewed understanding that strong families, strong communities and vibrant cultures and traditions will contribute to a stronger Canada for all of us.

What the bill proposes would not improve the lives of the communities it seeks to help. It would only create another hurdle, another level of bureaucracy and another barrier for indigenous communities that simply need the government to do its job, to honour existing treaties and to follow through on its promises.

Let me close by returning to my riding of Yellowhead, a region rich in history and tradition and home to proud indigenous peoples who want the same thing as every Canadian: the opportunity to build a better life, to raise a healthy family and to move forward with dignity and respect. They do not need another commissioner. They do not need another report. They need a government that will stop talking and start doing. That is what Conservatives will fight for and what I will fight for.

I urge all members to vote against Bill C-10.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to point out that members opposite and members in the opposition actively deny some of the horrors of residential schools and subsequent intergenerational trauma, so will the member take this opportunity to state on the public record that he acknowledges the horrors of residential schools, acknowledges the deaths of indigenous children at residential schools and acknowledges the need for genuine truth and reconciliation?

[William Stevenson, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I stated in my speech earlier, the Conservatives have a long history of stating that they do recognize that there were problems in the past and that we have addressed them, starting with Mr. Harper. There were several times when actual action was done; it was not just words but things that were actually produced and going forward. I do recognize that there were these problems.

We on the Conservative side want action, not just more words.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. I will wait until he puts his earpiece in so that he can understand one of the two official languages in the House. Here is my question for my colleague.

We know full well that the Conservative Party is the champion of accountability. In this bill, the new commissioner only has the power to observe. They have no power to enforce and to actually change things. They can watch, but their hands are tied. They cannot change anything.

I would like my colleague to tell me whether his party agrees that the commissioner should be given real mechanisms so that they can actually change things when the government acts against first nations.

[William Stevenson, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that the commissioner would have absolutely no teeth. It begs the question, would they really have any ability to do anything that is not already in existence? It would be very similar to the Auditor General, who has made all kinds of recommendations, but nothing is accomplished. The government can choose to ignore things.

I do see the proposal as a waste of money, when we already have the ability, with the Auditor General, to do the reports that the commissioner would now have the ability to do. It is just a repeat of the same abilities we already have, so it would be very much a waste of time. However, I am not sure that I would actually want to give the commissioner any more power unless we wanted to extend to the Auditor General the power to make implementations. They would be on the same level, as far as I see it.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is new to this place, but I am not. I have been here for 10 years now, and I have seen repeatedly how the government ignores reports from officers of Parliament. It ignores reports from the Auditor General. The Auditor General audits a department, finds shortcomings and tables a report. The government says it accepts the findings, and then it does nothing. It has done this with every officer of Parliament. It ignored the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner.

What would adding another officer of Parliament do, other than give the government another person whose reports it can ignore?

[William Stevenson, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, from my reading and learning over the last several months, I see absolutely no benefit to creating more reports. We need to actually have action. Just having another place for another bookshelf to store another report to collect dust would not be productive and would not get to the root of any of the problems.

We need to actually implement what we have and listen to the reports we have, as I said earlier in my speech. We have had over 20 reports from the Auditor General, and very few of those have actually been implemented. There is no point in creating more reports to be ignored.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address the House this afternoon and join the debate on Bill C-10. I thank the member for Abbotsford—South Langley, who is covering for me at committee at the moment, for assisting me so that I could be here to address the House on this important legislation.

I want to acknowledge that today, October 7, is the sombre anniversary of the worst instance of anti-Semitic violence since the Holocaust. My grandmother was a Holocaust survivor, and I cannot imagine what her response would have been, were she still alive, to the horrific images from that terrorist attack. The violence and the holding of hostages has continued since that day, and I add my voice to the many calling for the release of hostages and for Hamas to lay down its arms. I know that is not the topic of the bill before us, but I did want to mention it given what day it is.

Today, we are debating Bill C-10, a government bill purportedly dealing with issues of justice and reconciliation. The bill would not do that at all, and on that basis, we will be opposing it. I will explain both our opposition to the bill and why I think we should take a different approach.

Bill C-10 would add an additional bureaucratic system around adherence to modern treaties. It proposes to create an additional commissioner of Parliament who would assess and look at the government's response to modern treaties. I suppose the logic of the government here is that the only thing holding the Liberals back from fulfilling their promises is if there was just one more commissioner telling them to do the right thing.

As my colleagues have pointed out, there is always a multiplicity of reports from independent officers or commissioners of Parliament and from civil society highlighting the shortcomings of the government. The government could act on the many recommendations it has received for concretely improving the lives of indigenous peoples, but instead of taking the kind of concrete action that we and many others have proposed, the approach of the government is to say that maybe if we had one more commissioner, it would make all the difference.

I will also comment in response to, I believe, the member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, a new member who was making some outrageous claims about the Conservative Party's approach to what happened in residential schools. In fairness, he is a new member, but he could still read the history of what occurred and was said here prior to the time he was elected.

The member maybe does not know, although he could know, that it was Stephen Harper, a previous Conservative prime minister, who apologized officially on behalf of the Government of Canada for what happened in residential schools. It is the Liberal Party that continues to acknowledge, honour and celebrate Liberal prime ministers, in their recent history, who were involved in the opening of residential schools.

Given the efforts of the member to try to make the issue of truth and reconciliation partisan, if he wants to talk about partisan differences when it comes to actions and steps, I am happy to educate him about partisan differences. It was a Conservative government that had the courage, vision and honour to give an apology when previous Liberal governments were unwilling to. We also set up the truth and reconciliation process. Many individuals, of course, were involved, but it was a process that began and took place under a Conservative government.

If the member is unaware of this country's history, I am happy to helpfully add to his knowledge by emphasizing the work that was done by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in that regard. Conservatives believe deeply in the importance of truth and reconciliation, and we are proud to recognize the role Prime Minister Harper played in that. I hope the member will come back during questions and comments to follow up on this point.

To get back to this legislation, this bill proposes to create another bureaucratic position, an officer position, in Parliament that would add to an existing group of oversight bodies that can look at the government's performance on these files. In our judgment, that would add additional bureaucracy when what the government needs to do is take the concrete steps that would improve the lives of indigenous people.

I want to drill into some of the actions that the government could consider that would be more concrete and meaningful. Before speaking in the House, I came from the human resources committee, where we are studying the critical issue of unemployment in this country. Youth unemployment is at 14.5%, and unemployment overall continues to climb. It is now at 7.1%. We are going to see new jobs numbers out this Friday, but we continue to see serious, worsening problems in unemployment, the continuation of a multi-year trend.

We know that unemployment challenges are particularly acute among indigenous Canadians. The Statistics Canada reports on unemployment do not include indigenous people living on reserves, but we know through various metrics that there are persistent challenges with indigenous unemployment in this country.

It is worth noting, as we think about that challenge, that indigenous people are more likely to live in rural and remote areas, proximate to the natural resource sector. While employment in the economy overall is substantially impacted by the kinds of policies that exist in the natural resource sector, employment for indigenous people is disproportionately impacted by policies that relate to natural resource development. This is precisely the testimony we heard this morning at committee: Indigenous people are represented in employment in natural resource development in much higher numbers than they are represented in employment in other sectors.

As Conservatives, we have championed, as part of a larger reconciliation agenda, the importance of economic reconciliation, that is, policies that provide indigenous people with access to employment opportunities. If we want policies that provide access to employment opportunities for indigenous people, they have to include sectors in which indigenous people are more likely to be employed, one of which is, substantially, natural resource development.

Policies from the Liberal government that have blocked at every turn the natural resource sector make it more difficult for indigenous people to find employment. Polices from the Liberal government that block natural resource development disproportionately affect indigenous people seeking employment. That is a reality. Some in the government, for ideological reasons, may say that it is worth it and is a price they are willing to pay, but I think they should acknowledge the disproportionate, negative impact of their anti-energy policies on indigenous people.

What we also heard just a few minutes ago at the human resources committee on the issue of resource development was an acknowledgement from experts that the tone and aesthetic from the Prime Minister's Office may have changed around the discussion of resources, but the substance has not changed. Although we hear words and sounds that are supposed to give the impression of more interest in resource development, the reality is that the policies have not changed. Energy companies looking to create jobs and opportunity here in Canada are asking for the necessary policy and regulatory changes that would unleash economic development and allow for the creation of additional economic opportunities for indigenous people, but the government has not only refused to make those changes but outright opposed them.

One obvious concrete example is the incredible economic opportunities that would be associated with the development of pipeline infrastructure connecting Alberta with export opportunities in northern B.C. We have seen instances of indigenous nations not only supporting but coming forward as proponents of these kinds of projects. They see the opportunities that would emerge from these kinds of developments.

However, the Liberals have persisted in their support for anti-energy Bill C-48, which prohibits exports of energy resources from B.C.'s north coast. Let us acknowledge an obvious reality that some people would like to pretend is not there but clearly is. There are ships off B.C.'s north coast that are carrying energy products; they are just not Canadian ships. There is an abundance of traffic in that region carrying products that could be exported from Canada.

There is no legal way of keeping trade in energy from being in that part of the ocean. It is just a question of whether Canada will benefit economically from the export of our resources, whether we will allow indigenous people who want to be part of those projects to benefit and whether the government will continue to keep its head in the sand and ignore these economic realities. Some of us are hearing from time to time about ostriches. There are certainly people in this House who have their heads in the sand when it comes to these realities of energy development, and they are the ones across the aisle.

The other thing I want to underline when it comes to measures that would improve the quality of life for indigenous peoples is that the government really needs to clean up the mess it has created in the indigenous procurement program. In the last Parliament, we saw the very directly prosecuted issue of the Liberal indigenous procurement scandal.

This is the way the scandal has worked. The government put in place a target for indigenous procurement. It said that it wanted 5% of government procurement to come from indigenous businesses. There are existing organizations supporting and recognizing indigenous businesses, and there are a number of lists and entities outside of government connected with indigenous entities that are working on maintaining lists of indigenous businesses and providing supports to them. The government chose, instead of effectively engaging with external organizations on indigenous business identification, that it would create its own list of indigenous businesses, and it turned out that some businesses listed as indigenous businesses by the Liberal government were not on the indigenous business lists of any external organization.

If the Liberals say that a particular business is an indigenous business and no indigenous entity outside of government says it is an indigenous business, I would suggest there might be some red flags there. Hypothetically, if one of those businesses was owned by a minister of the Crown who was not indigenous, that would also be a red flag.

[An hon. member]

Name him.

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

Mr. Speaker, a member is asking that I name the individual involved. There were at least two individuals involved, and it is fair to say both of them were named Randy.

The tragic and disgraceful case of the former Liberal minister from Edmonton Centre is notable, but it is also not the only case. The AFN told the government operations committee that, in its view, a majority of companies benefiting from this set-aside were actually shell companies. This explains well the virtue signalling over substance we see from the government when it comes to these issues.

On the one hand, the Liberals want to trumpet the fact that they are putting forward a target for indigenous procurement. On the other, they allowed well-connected Liberal friends who were not indigenous to pretend to be indigenous in order to access these contracts that were supposed to be set aside for indigenous people. What an utterly disgraceful mockery they have made of, I think, the good intentions of Canadians, who asked their government to try to undertake concrete policies that are going to create jobs and opportunity for indigenous peoples, moving forward with economic reconciliation.

They allow non-indigenous pretenders and shysters to benefit from contract set-asides that were supposed to be for indigenous people. At the government operations committee, we had a whistle-blower come and testify about a situation in which a clearly non-indigenous company, which basically had one indigenous employee, created this structure of a joint venture between this one individual and this larger company to try to make it look as though it was an indigenous joint venture. The indigenous person was clearly taken advantage of in this arrangement, but it allowed the non-indigenous company to access a significant number of government contracts under the guise of being part of an indigenous joint venture.

We had the whistle-blower, a former auditor, come before the government operations committee to testify about what happened in this case. Further, he testified that the government was not interested in hearing his feedback. In fact, he was gradually pushed out from being able to provide this feedback. Because of that, we were able to pass a motion at the government operations committee to further probe this particular case that this former auditor and whistle-blower was bringing to the attention of the committee. We had lined up a number of witnesses to hear from, including the company that was part of this joint venture, as well as giving an opportunity to this indigenous individual, who I think was taken advantage of in this arrangement. We had a plan to have this study, but, of course, the rest is history. The government prorogued Parliament, and then we went straight into an election. The Liberals tried to bury this issue of the Liberal indigenous procurement scandal in the ensuing months.

This is very important, and it is something we need to talk about. My understanding is that we will be hearing from the procurement ombud, as well as from the Auditor General, at some point in the next year about the Liberal indigenous procurement scandal. I certainly look forward to those reports. Unfortunately, I suspect that, as with many of the reports that have been done in the past, we will see the government ignore the results of these reports. It will be up to Canadians to look at the work done by the Auditor General and the procurement ombud and to respond to the fact that the Liberals, while sometimes talking a good game on reconciliation, have actually blocked economic development for indigenous people and allowed a situation in which non-indigenous fraudsters take advantage of these set-asides by taking contracts that were supposed to be set aside for indigenous people.

The Liberals have allowed this to happen. They have, at best, looked the other way in order to make it look as though their indigenous procurement numbers are better than they actually are. Canadians will see these reports and will be able to respond to this.

Meanwhile, the persistence of these scandals underlines just how ridiculous the government's approach is today. We have seen these scandals. They have been investigated. There have been auditors the Liberals have maligned and ignored, whistle-blowers needing to come to committee to talk about abuses of the Liberal indigenous procurement program, and now they are bringing a bill saying they are going to create one more commissioner.

How about they listen to the auditors who have already brought forward problems? How about they prepare to meditate deeply on what will no doubt be a damning report from the procurement ombud and from the Auditor General? How about they engage in a more substantive and serious way with the work of existing officers of Parliament, who are calling them out for corruption and abuse of process? How about, instead of focusing on trying to look good on these issues, the government take seriously the need for substantive policy change to catalyze economic development for indigenous peoples and for all Canadians? How about they focus on the results instead of on trying to continually send signals?

That is all Bill C-10 is. It would create an additional officer, an additional commissioner of Parliament, whom the government would no doubt ignore, instead of focusing on the real issues and the real solutions this country and indigenous people need.

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

Mr. Speaker, the position of the Conservative Party on the legislation is somewhat disappointing. As the day proceeds, it is becoming more evident that its members will not support Bill C-10.

Modern treaties have provided and afforded social and economic development. This has really had a very positive outcome for the whole issue of reconciliation. The legislation is being led by indigenous community leaders who see the benefit of having a commissioner, an agent of Parliament, who has the experience and the ability to reflect on the many desires that are there within the indigenous community.

My question for the member opposite is this: Does he, at the very least, recognize that there would be some value in allowing the bill to go to committee at some point in time?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for, perhaps unintentionally, recognizing the good work done by the previous government, that of former prime minister Stephen Harper.

The member said he believes that modern treaties are important and provide value. He will then appreciate the fact that five modern treaties were negotiated under former prime minister Stephen Harper.

I wonder if members could help me. How many modern treaties were negotiated under Justin Trudeau?

[An hon. member]

Zero.

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

Zero. Wow.

Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize that the member was willing, in his comments, to highlight the importance of modern treaties, even though recognizing their importance is probably not in his partisan interest. We have five negotiated by the Conservatives and zero negotiated by the Liberal government.

The point is that we did not need a commissioner to get it done. We did not need an extra layer of bureaucracy to get it done; we just got it done.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. He said the Conservative Party is a reconciliation champion because, during the Harper era, it was the first official party to apologize for residential schools.

I find that interesting, but I would like him to explain the disconnect between that statement and what his party did a few months ago when Bill C‑5 was introduced. There was no prior consultation of indigenous communities about that bill. The Assembly of First Nations and Métis and Inuit communities all spoke out against that, but the Conservative Party never did. It said nothing at all. I think perhaps the Conservatives should be a little more careful about claiming to be reconciliation champions.

There is one major contradiction in particular that I would like my colleague to explain. How could his party also vote in favour of a closure motion to help the Liberals muzzle the House just four weeks into a new government?

How exactly does my colleague plan to extract a reasonable explanation and justification from all these contradictions?

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree that there are problems with Bill C-5. We are a responsible opposition. We tried to improve this situation.

However, the fundamental problem is that we need to improve the system for assessing projects. The Liberals created major obstacles that prevented projects from moving forward. Then they said that they wanted to introduce a bill to create special and unique circumstances for certain major projects.

We hope to be able to move a few more projects forward. However, at the end of the day, the system set out in Bill C-5 is not the solution. We need to put a new system in place that is clear, simple and fair to reduce barriers and allow projects to move forward.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member reminded the House of some historical facts and that some members who have engaged in the debate are on some pretty weak ground in taking such a condescending tone toward Conservatives.

The member reminded the House of the scandal of one year ago. It seems a long time ago, but it was this time last year, if I remember correctly, that the scandal of indigenous procurement came to light involving a then minister of the Crown. I thank the member for reminding Canadians of that. Perhaps the Liberals ought to be a little less haughty in their defence of the bill and on indigenous policy altogether.

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

Mr. Speaker, those are great points from my colleague.

What happened with the former member for Edmonton Centre, the Liberal minister who pretended to be indigenous and was not, is part of a pattern of elite people in positions of privilege who say they are trying to help those who are disadvantaged. They then seek to fraudulently appropriate for themselves benefits that were supposed to be set aside for those disadvantaged communities.

It is really disgraceful, but it is what has happened under the Liberal indigenous procurement program. On the one hand, the government is saying it is setting aside benefits for indigenous peoples, and on the other hand, non-indigenous people connected to the government have appropriated those benefits for themselves, from taxpayers. This is what happened in that high-profile case.

That is not the only case. The Liberal indigenous procurement scandal is much larger than just that instance. We have had multiple instances of specific cases coming forward. We know the numbers overall. We are hearing from indigenous leadership that a majority of contracts under this program have gone to shell companies.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on that last topic.

The member and I had an opportunity to do some travelling together. We met with some first nations. Particularly, at Lac des Mille Lacs First Nation outside Thunder Bay, we had a great discussion about the procurement process. We heard first-hand how they did not feel involved and did not feel they had the opportunity to be involved in that process. Then, of course, we saw that contracts were awarded to many non-indigenous organizations.

I wonder if the member has any more comments on situations like that, things that he has heard across Canada about how those opportunities have not been there for first nations and for indigenous communities across the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was about a year ago now that I was on a road trip across the country, mainly focused on meeting with people in different places on this indigenous procurement issue.

I had a chance to meet with the folks he mentioned in his riding, as well as with Winnipeg's Indigenous Chamber of Commerce and a number of educational institutions in western Canada.

This was a great opportunity to talk to people outside the national capital about the real impacts of various government policies in this regard. The economic reconciliation agenda is very important to indigenous peoples across this country. They want to see government policies that support economic development, prosperity and opportunity. Part of that issue is addressing the underlying economic challenges facing this country as a whole. If we are able to address those problems, we will all be better off, as well as if we clear up some of the abuses and problems in these programs that are supposed to benefit indigenous people but do not.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, could the member provide his thoughts in regard to why Stephen Harper, for example, refused to support the Kelowna accord, which provided many of the things the member just finished talking about.

The member is not talking about Bill C-10, so maybe he could provide a specific answer on why the Conservative Party continues to put up roadblocks, in terms of development and support for health, education and other activities within indigenous communities by working with indigenous community leaders.

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

Mr. Speaker, as we have seen for the last 10 years, the approach of the Liberals is to not address the issues. Conservatives have a plan and a vision that support strong indigenous nations that are developing economically, that control their own resources and that control their own futures. That is why our party is proud to have a growing presence among and representation from indigenous leaders who are excited about our agenda.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Pickering—Brooklin.

Kwe kwe, ulaakut and tanshi. Let me start by acknowledging that Canada's Parliament is located on the unceded territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin people, whose presence here reaches back to time immemorial.

I am pleased to speak today about the proposed commissioner for modern treaty implementation act and to highlight some of the key points contained in this legislation as well as the roles and responsibilities of the newly proposed agent of Parliament.

For 50 years, modern treaties have been fundamental to our work to advance reconciliation with indigenous peoples. They promote strong and sustainable indigenous communities and help make sure that indigenous peoples can decide what is best for their future. The Government of Canada is continuing to work on fulfilling its obligations under modern treaties and building and maintaining true nation-to-nation, government-to-government and Inuit-Crown relationships with modern treaty partners.

Though we have made important progress like developing Canada's collaborative modern treaty implementation policy, there is still much more to do. For more than 20 years, modern treaty partners have been calling for more oversight to address persistent modern treaty implementation issues and to hold the federal government accountable to Parliament for its modern treaty responsibilities. That is exactly why, in May 2024, at the intergovernmental leaders' forum, the government announced its intention to create a new agent of Parliament: the commissioner for modern treaty implementation.

After this long-overdue announcement was made, many indigenous partners and groups voiced their support. Eva Clayton, president of the Nisga'a Lisims Government and one of the co-chairs of the Land Claims Agreements Coalition, stated on CTV News that the commissioner “will give a focus on areas that the Canadian government needs to address in order to ensure that the spirit and intent of each of our agreements are fulfilled”. She added, “Because we know that once our agreements are fully implemented, it will make life better for our people, our community members, which in turn will have a positive impact on all Canadians.”

There would be many benefits to having a commissioner fulfilling this role. Most importantly, the commissioner would shine a light on areas where the Government of Canada is not successfully addressing ongoing structural modern treaty implementation issues. The commissioner's role was codeveloped with modern treaty partners to make sure there would be independent, credible, effective and sustainable oversight of modern treaty implementation. It was specifically designed to hold the federal government accountable to Parliament for implementing its modern treaty obligations and to make sure the federal government acts in ways that strengthen its relationships with its modern treaty partners.

By providing independent oversight, the commissioner would help improve the implementation of modern treaties at the federal level and improve awareness, understanding and action across the federal public service. The bottom line is that the commissioner would support Canada in being a better modern treaty partner.

As my colleagues have mentioned on the floor of the House, the commissioner would be a new agent of Parliament, similar to the Auditor General and the Privacy Commissioner. This means they would have a direct reporting relationship to Parliament. The scope of the commissioner would cover all federal activities related to implementing modern treaties. This would include the implementation of modern treaties themselves as well as any associated self-government agreement or other arrangement related to modern treaties.

It is important to note that the commissioner's mandate would only be focused on federal activities related to the implementation of these modern treaties. It would not include activities of provincial, territorial or indigenous governments. The commissioner's main job would be to look at what government departments are doing to carry out modern treaties and to give advice on whether their actions follow three key principles: first, strengthening the relationships between the Government of Canada and modern treaty partners; second, fulfilling the Government of Canada's obligations under, and achieving the objectives of, modern treaties; and third, upholding the honour of the Crown through the timely and effective implementation of modern treaties.

The core functions of the commissioner would be to perform reviews and performance audits. Reviews are a fit-for-purpose tool meant to provide the commissioner with the means to identify ongoing, systemic issues affecting modern treaty implementation. They would allow the commissioner to look deeper into these issues, identify their underlying causes and thoroughly examine how federal decisions are made and implemented. A review could focus on a specific program or activity within a single organization, or it could be more expansive and capture a systemic, cross-cutting issue across multiple federal government departments. For each review, the commissioner would work closely with modern treaty partners to determine the terms, procedures and methodology to be followed.

The commissioner would also be empowered to conduct performance audits. These performance audits would be conducted based on national, widely accepted auditing standards that are the same as those followed by the Auditor General. When a review or performance audit is completed, the final report would be submitted to the Speakers of the Senate and House of Commons for tabling. This is the most direct and effective way of holding the government accountable for its actions.

At the end of each year, the commissioner would send a report to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations. This report would include what the office of the commissioner did throughout the year, as well as the findings and recommendations outlined in any reports published in that year. This would also be tabled in Parliament.

In addition to reviews and audits, the commissioner would also be authorized to provide briefings on their work to any minister or modern treaty partner as they consider appropriate, or with any committee designated or established by Parliament, at the committee’s request.

When it comes to the appointment process for the commissioner, they must hold the confidence of modern treaty partners and of Parliament. The commissioner would be appointed through a Governor in Council appointment process. This means a cabinet order. Before that order is given, however, there are a few steps that must be taken. First, modern treaty partners would be consulted. This would be an integral part of the appointment process. Then consultations would take place with the leader of every recognized party in the Senate and the House of Commons. Like the Auditor General, the appointment requires a resolution from the Senate and the House of Commons. Only after that can the commissioner be appointed.

The commissioner would be appointed for a term not exceeding seven years, with the possibility of reappointment for one additional term. They could be removed only by the Governor in Council on address of the House and the Senate. This is critical to protecting the commissioner’s independence and maintaining their ability to complete their mandate.

I would like to emphasize that this entire appointment process, along with this entire initiative, was codeveloped with modern treaty partners. Based on feedback from codevelopment sessions in the development of the oversight body proposal, we learned that partners wanted to make sure that the commissioner would have the necessary knowledge of modern treaties to fulfill their mandate.

What we have accomplished with modern treaty partners in the past proves that so much is possible when we work together. We know that the Government of Canada values its modern treaty relationships and is committed to fully and effectively implementing these agreements. As we learn from our past mistakes, we are listening and growing. Together, we are addressing challenges faced by modern treaty partners across Canada.

The commissioner’s oversight would support modern treaty implementation and, in turn, support self-determination, decision-making and economic growth for indigenous communities. Above all, the commissioner would help build trust, transparency and accountability as we work toward building a better democracy in this country.

Meegwetch. Qujannamiik. Marsee.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to begin with a correction. Earlier today in debate, I mentioned that Conservatives got six modern treaties signed in six years, but it should have been five. I apologize for that. I will note that five modern treaties in six years are still five more than the Liberals have achieved in 10 years.

We have seen time and time again that the Liberals have ignored the reports of the Auditor General that have been brought forward. Why should we believe that just because they have created a new bureaucracy and a new officer to tell them the same thing, which is that they are not getting the work done, they are actually going to do the work? Why will they not just do the work they have been tasked to do?

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I find myself confused by the Conservatives' position on this matter. They say very vocally that they support the implementation of modern treaties and they say they support the recognition and implementation of indigenous rights in this country, yet they are vociferously objecting to the establishment of an agent of Parliament who would be mandated to track the government's progress toward implementing those very modern treaties.

It is a confusing position, and I encourage the Conservatives to go back to the drawing board and try again.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not necessarily want to defend what my Conservative colleague just said, but as the saying goes, the past predicts the future. We have seen the Liberals forcefully and vehemently state on several occasions that the Parliamentary Budget Officer's reports were unfair and then refuse to act on them. I wonder if they will do the same thing to someone in charge of alerting us to unfortunate situations experienced by first nations.

I would like my colleague to talk to us about that. I would like him to perhaps be a little more frank and direct about what the government will do when it receives reports that directly contradict its policies.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

It is an excellent question and an important one that speaks to the vital role that independent agents of Parliament play within our political system. They are not answerable to any government. They are answerable to this body, the Parliament of Canada. That is the source of their authority, and that is precisely why their role is so important. It means that very often, they will tell governments things that they do not want to hear. Certainly our Conservative colleagues will remember that from the decade when Mr. Harper was in power. Many reports of the agents of Parliament criticized that government, and rightly so because that is their function.

The modern treaty commissioner is a role that the government will heed and, indeed, I expect that role will have criticisms of government because that is the function we expect in the exercise of their duties.

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

Mr. Speaker, another Conservative member from Vancouver Island recently made a statement that indigenous bands asked for residential schools, and supporters of the Conservative Party routinely engage in residential school denialism, supported by the Leader of the Opposition.

How would the member for Victoria respond to those kinds of comments and how are they received in his community?

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, just in the last week, I and many other British Columbians have been embarrassed at the travesty of the shambolic conduct of Conservatives in the province of British Columbia with respect to the question of reconciliation and indigenous rights and title. We have seen overt and unabashed residential school denialism. We have seen a flagrant attempt to whitewash history. We have seen patent disrespect heaped upon first nations in British Columbia and elsewhere across the country by all kinds of individuals closely aligned with the B.C. Conservative Party and the Conservative Party of Canada.

This is a debate that is being had by precisely one party in the House. There is no debate on this side of the aisle. We understand the legacies of residential schools. We heed the calls of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and we are determined to do better in the future and move forward in a good way.

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

Mr. Speaker, kwe kwe, taanshi. Hello.

Before we proceed, let us take a moment to recognize the gratitude we have for being gathered here on the traditional, unceded and unsurrendered lands of the Algonquin Anishinabe people, whose connection to this land continues to this day.

I am thankful for the time to speak today to the proposed legislation to establish a commissioner for modern treaty implementation. I will focus on the partnership approach that was used to codevelop this initiative with modern treaty partners.

The Government of Canada acknowledges the painful legacy of colonialism in this country and understands the need to change the path going forward. One way of doing so is through modern treaties, which have been an essential part of advancing reconciliation and building nation-to-nation, Inuit-Crown, and government-to-government relationships that are based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership.

Modern treaties are part of the constitutional framework of Canada and represent a distinct expression of reconciliation. They are created through negotiations with indigenous groups to reflect their specific needs, priorities and circumstances, be they political, economic, legal, historical, cultural or social.

In February 2023, the Government of Canada and modern treaty partners jointly announced Canada's collaborative modern treaty implementation policy. The policy acknowledges that Canada can and must do better with respect to modern treaty implementation. The policy was an important step forward, creating greater oversight to make sure the federal government keeps its modern treaty promises and is held accountable to Parliament for its commitments.

In March 2023, the Government of Canada and modern treaty partners began an intensive codevelopment process. It was facilitated mainly through the modern treaty implementation policy working group. The group consisted of representatives from most of the 27 modern treaties, and federal officials from Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada. The groups that did not participate through this forum were engaged through their preferred methods.

Throughout the codevelopment period between March and September 2023, department officials also held over 90 engagements across the federal system with other government departments and agencies. The proposal was under federal consideration until May 2024.

At the second annual Intergovernmental Leaders Forum, the Government of Canada, modern treaty partners and self-governing indigenous governments came together to announce the intention to create an independent oversight body headed by a new commissioner of modern treaty implementation as an agent of Parliament. This new role would be a long-overdue, transformative shift in the modern treaty relationship that symbolizes a collaborative approach to governance and accountability.

The commissioner would work to hold the federal government accountable to its modern treaty obligations and objectives, as well as to the relationships they embody. Following the announcement, the Government of Canada began an extensive period of consultation and engagement on a draft legislative proposal to create the commissioner—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I am sorry to interrupt. The member will have close to six minutes left after question period.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act respecting the Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will continue where I left off.

The draft legislation proposal for the commissioner was shared with over 130 modern treaty partners for their awareness, review and feedback. The partners consulted included groups negotiating a modern treaty, self-governing indigenous governments, sectoral agreement holders, national indigenous organizations and key partners, and provincial and territorial governments.

The reason for this approach was to ensure that all partners with interest in the commissioner's work would be consulted and engaged. The government engaged with partners through bilateral and multilateral meetings, and, using existing working groups, through negotiation tables and implementation committees, where possible. Consultations were originally scheduled to conclude on June 28, 2024, but based on feedback from partners, the consultation period was extended to July 19, 2024. This was to ensure that all partners that may have had an interest in the commissioner's work were consulted and engaged.

In total, the government received over 100 proposed changes to the draft legislation proposal. Over the summer and early fall of 2024, the government engaged with modern treaty partners to discuss the proposed changes and agree on a path forward. Partners that were engaged with and consulted on the proposal shared a diverse range of views and perspectives. Generally, they showed strong support for the commissioner for modern treaty implementation.

A news release from Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated stated, “The creation of a Commissioner of Modern Treaty Implementation demonstrates a real step towards genuine collaboration from Canada.” The Tlicho Government stated, “The Commissioner for Modern Treaty has been decades in the making. This is an exciting moment that our hard work together has paid off, and this important mechanism for accountability and oversight will be established.” Modern treaty partners are pleased with the bill before us, which was codeveloped with them. They have shared with us that the commissioner could help strengthen modern treaty relationships, as well as contribute to reconciliation.

After sharing the draft proposal with partners, the government received a number of insights and proposed changes, many of which shared similar themes and ideas. The legislation before us is the product of the work to integrate as many of the partner's proposed changes as possible from the engagement period in the summer of 2024. For example, the government heard that modern treaty partners needed to be involved in the commissioner's work at the same level as Government of Canada institutions. We made sure this would be the case.

We heard that stronger consultation requirements were needed throughout the legislation. We added those, including new consultation requirements within the independent review process.

We also heard that the commissioner's scope needed to include agreements that support the implementation of modern treaties, like associated self-government and fiscal agreements tied to the treaty. This is now strengthened. This important input was taken into consideration to create the proposed legislation before us today.

The Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations held a meeting with modern treaty leadership on revisions made to the proposed legislation. They signalled their support for the proposal and urged Canada to move forward as quickly as possible to create the commissioner.

Modern treaty partners strongly advocated for the reintroduction of this bill. They are pleased with the bill and they want it to move forward.

The proposed legislation for the commissioner for modern treaty implementation represents a significant achievement in codevelopment and a major milestone. It marks a transformative shift in the modern treaty relationship. Codeveloping this legislation is an important step in the shared journey of reconciliation. The progress that partners have made so far shows just how powerful the collaborative work has been. It is clear the dialogue and input from indigenous partners strengthened the proposal for the commissioner for modern treaty implementation.

Improving awareness, understanding and action in the federal government related to modern treaty implementation is crucial to building strong relationships based on trust, transparency and accountability with modern treaty partners. We will continue to codevelop approaches, and we will work with modern treaty partners to move past the painful legacy of colonialism and ensure that indigenous people have a voice in shaping their own future.

Meegwetch. Marsi.

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

Mr. Speaker, what I have heard during the speeches is nothing new. The concern we have raised in the House specifically is that this piece of legislation would not give the new commissioner, whoever that person might be, the ability to hold government departments to account.

We have a slew of reports from the Auditor General already pointing out the failings of governments over the past decades. We have numerous departments set up to monitor modern treaties, among other things, yet government departments do not seem to respond to any reports that are tabled. Why will this be different?

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

Mr. Speaker, the commissioner's job would be to check if the federal government is fulfilling its promises under modern treaties, working in good faith with indigenous partners and upholding the honour of the Crown. The commissioner would do reviews, audits and briefings to see how government programs are working and would share what they find with the minister, indigenous partners and Parliament. This is very important and crucial for accountability.

[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?

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree that it is a distraction. We have a terrible economy. Our resources are not getting developed. The Premier of the Northwest Territories was here today with some grand chiefs. They want to get economic development up in the territories. All we are seeing is a decline in the economy there.

We need to get real things done. That is going to be with a future Conservative government.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and to speak to Bill C-10. The bill would create a new agent of Parliament, a commissioner for modern treaty implementation. The commissioner's role would be to assess how the terms of modern treaties are being met or not met, as the case may be, and report to Parliament on their findings. I see that the agent would not really have the power to tell the government what to do, nor to control in any way its response to their findings, and we already have the Auditor General writing reports and highlighting the gaps and inadequacies of the Liberals' response in the area of modern treaties, so really the commissioner would just be another highly paid Liberal position that would have no power to direct the government to do anything. I am not in favour of creating additional bureaucracy.

That said, I want to start by laying out the premises from which I am speaking. First of all, treaty rights must be respected; this is absolute. Second, we must work with first nations, Inuit and Métis people to ensure that they are self-governing and prosperous, and to help address issues that need to be overcome. I think that is clear, and that is the path of reconciliation in our country, but whenever the Liberals are failing to accomplish anything, which is what has happened over the last 10 years, they create a bureaucracy.

We have seen this pattern of behaviour in the housing crisis, for example. We know that far too many people were allowed into the country for the number of housing starts. The former housing minister had said we had to build 550,000 units per year in order to catch up over the next four years, and housing starts are down, so not only did the Liberals create one housing bureaucracy, but they are on their fourth bureaucracy and still there is no progress in terms of actual results.

There is the same problem in defence. We have been trying to buy F-35s since I was elected, and there is still nothing, so instead of fixing the existing procurement process, the Liberals decided to create a new defence procurement bureaucracy, and there is no proof yet that it will accomplish anything.

It is the same thing with major projects. The government has all kinds of infrastructure departments that could be building in our country. It put together an infrastructure bank full of high-priced Liberals who have not built much of anything, and $35 billion went out the window there. Again, it is a bureaucracy that accomplishes nothing and that is not helpful for anything.

There is the fentanyl czar, at a moment when the fentanyl crisis is an issue in terms of trade with our southern partners. It is definitely something that Canadians care about. It has killed 50,000 Canadians from fentanyl overdoses. We have 400 fentanyl superlabs, according to the RCMP and CSIS. The port of Vancouver is receiving shipping containers from China that are not scanned and are sent down to Washington state. What has the fentanyl czar accomplished in the months that he has been in place? Absolutely nothing. That is the reason I do not support adding additional bureaucracy to try to achieve something.

When it comes to truth and reconciliation, let us look at the Conservative record versus the Liberal record. It was Stephen Harper who commissioned the truth and reconciliation report that brought to the House 92 recommendations of how we could move towards reconciliation, and in 10 years the Liberal government has implemented 14 of them out of 92. That is a failing grade. When it comes to negotiating modern treaties, the Harper government finished five, and there have been zero out of 70 for the Liberal government in 10 years. Again, that is a failing grade.

When the Liberals brought forward the building Canada act, it was the Conservatives who brought forward the need to consult with indigenous peoples, when the Liberals were ready to exempt from everything every project that they wanted to go forward. Therefore it is the Conservatives who have sincere support to ensure that we move towards reconciliation and that we turn our indigenous peoples, first nations, Inuit and Métis into a prosperous self-governing part of our Canadian entity.

In my riding, I happen to have four first nation reserves, and they are not receiving a lot of assistance from the government. With regard to Kettle & Stony Point, these are very entrepreneurial individuals. In fact, their current latest project is to put in place a solar panel path. There is technology to do this that will power the entire reserve. This is green technology. This is an excellent initiative and they are struggling to get support.

We can talk about the Walpole Island folks. Bkejwanong, which is the name that was added to the riding, has the only ferry to the U.S. in my riding. There was another ferry but the guy who is currently trying to negotiate with the U.S. is the guy who let the Coast Guard, while it was under his watch, speed, break the existing ferry, lose $4 million a year in revenue for the CBSA and get sued for more money than it would have taken to fix the thing and keep the border crossing in place, but that is another story. The Walpole Island ferry needs infrastructure upgrades in order to be able to take the heavier trucks, to increase the economic trade that we are doing with the U.S. Again, the federal government is not there for it.

I understand that this is the Conservative record and the Liberal record. I could add to that a couple of other things for the Liberals. I was here in 2015 when they pledged $8.4 billion to eliminate boil water advisories on reserves, and here we are. I can say, as a chemical engineer, that if someone gave me $8.4 billion for 129 boil water advisories, 10 years ago, and asked me to get that fixed, the job would be done now. In fact, after Jane Philpott left, we made next to no progress on this. We still have indigenous people who do not have clean water in this country, and I do not know how we can talk about trying to do anything positive if we do not give them basic rights to clean water.

Let us not forget that the Liberals brought lawsuits against indigenous children. They brought lawsuits against indigenous people trying to get dental care. That is the record of the Liberals. It is no wonder that indigenous people in Canada are concerned. However, because they are concerned, and because the Liberals think we are approaching an election, it is the perfect time for the Liberals to virtue signal that they are going to do something, but they are not really going to do anything. They are just going to introduce another bureaucracy. It is not like they should know better, honestly.

Between 2015 and 2017, here are the bureaucracies that they created to try to deal with the modern treaty issue. The first one was called the modern treaty implementation office. The next one was called the assessment of modern treaty implications office. The third one was called the performance management framework. Then they had the modern treaty management environment, the deputy ministers' oversight committee and then the reconciliation secretariat. After all of that bureaucracy and all of those highly paid people, I am sure they created lots of paper reports but nothing was accomplished.

That, in fact, is the key issue when we look at Bill C-10, that nothing is really going to be accomplished through the bill, yet there are serious issues that need to be addressed. Treaties need to be modernized. I think we need to move forward at a faster pace on reconciliation. It is not happening. When I look at even the language that is in Bill C-10, it is so hypocritical.

If we talk about the preamble, it states, “Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to achieving reconciliation with First Nations, Inuit and the Métis”. It is committed, but it has only done 14 out of 92 calls to action in the truth and reconciliation report.

It goes on to say, “Whereas the recognition and implementation of Aboriginal and treaty rights are at the core of reconciliation”. What about the latest gun confiscation, where they want to take hunting rights away from indigenous people by removing their firearms? It is unbelievable.

It also says, “Whereas modern treaties are intended to strengthen the health, dignity, well-being and resilience of Indigenous peoples”. In terms of health, we could talk about boil water advisories, or talk about taking them to court over dental care. How is that in any way lining up with what this bill is proposing?

It talks about the “resilience of Indigenous peoples, to create enduring relationships between modern treaty partners and to advance national socio-economic objectives that benefit all—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The member's time has elapsed.

Questions and comments, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding that we can all agree as parliamentarians that there are better ways we can find efficiency within the civil service, when I talk to indigenous communities across this country, they noticed a marked difference from the Liberal government about how we approach the issues and how we have invested in these solutions versus where the Conservative Party was 10 years ago when it was in government.

There is more work to be done, but what I really picked up on is that the member talked about energy and clean energy on reserve. I found it refreshing because I have not heard much from the Conservative opposition benches about climate change and about doing things to reduce emissions. I am curious about whether the member could opine a bit on her view.

We have not heard a lot about what the Conservative Party would do with respect to the environment. Is the position that the Conservatives would spend more money than the government is currently spending on renewable energy? What is their position?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that question because the Conservative Party has a great plan that would help reduce the global footprint not just by providing LNG and small modular nuclear reactors to supplant coal and heavy oils in China, India and the emerging world, but also by supporting green technology here at home and making Canada a leader in that, so that we could export that and create jobs here in Canada.

Certainly I do not believe in subsidizing something that is not sustainable, but I absolutely believe that there are green energies that would be effective. The one I talked about is one where the cost of the project is a very few million dollars, and it is actually sustainable to provide all the energy for the reserve, which costs nearly $1 million a year. This project has a payoff time that is very short and that is the way we should go.

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

Mr. Speaker, the proposed commissioner will not have the authority to enforce compliance, as my hon. colleague pointed out. Their role is to point a finger at the federal government's shortcomings and failures to comply with modern treaties. Their limited powers will only permit them to conduct performance reviews and audits.

Would the hon. member like the commissioner to have an enforcement role or does she think that would still be too much red tape?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think we need someone who will have authority over the government. The proposed commissioner would write a report with recommendations, but we already have that right now and the government has not moved. We need someone who can compel the government to act.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today, our colleague from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes mentioned that Conservatives support modern treaties. Bill C-10 would establish an independent commissioner and office.

Could my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong please expand on whether the commissioner would help resolve disputes over treaty interpretation?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that this would be an agent of Parliament, not an officer of Parliament. This person would have no power to do anything other than write reports to the government, which the government has already shown it would not act on. Certainly, I am sure this individual, whatever high-paid Liberal friend they choose, would have some expertise in modern treaties, but at the end of the day regarding the recommendations that would come forward, I have no confidence that they would be followed up on any more than those from the Auditor General and the officers of Parliament who previously made recommendations that have not been acted on by the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague was consistent. She said she would support amending the bill to give the commissioner more power to force action. Could she give us an example of how that might be worded?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if this position has no power over the government, then the government has just created a bureaucracy. If this person is actually able to force the government to take action or to act on the government's behalf to actually close the treaties and get agreement on the 70 that are still outstanding, that would be progress.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to rise this afternoon to speak to Bill C‑10.

It is also an honour to stop, especially given the content of the legislation, to recognize that we are all on the unceded territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin nation. To them, we say meegwetch. We recognize in this country, and it is quite a stunning thing when one starts diving into it, how many nations and language groups there are, how many peoples whose lands we live on without noticing or thinking about the thousands of years they stewarded Turtle Island, took care of and, in many cases, welcomed and protected European settlers and allowed them to survive. I say that today because it is critical that we not just recognize the need for reconciliation on the one statutory day per year that this Parliament created a couple of years ago, which we observed on September 30. It was once known as Orange Shirt Day because of Phyllis Webstad's story, which breaks our heart, of the wonderful orange shirt that her grandmother bought for her being taken away; she never saw it again.

On that day, I know my colleagues on all sides of this House went to events in their own ridings. Many of them were here in Ottawa for the event that took place on Parliament Hill, which was very moving. If we have said it once, we have said it a million times: Reconciliation is not just one day a year; it is how we conduct ourselves, what we do and how we show that we understand the project of reconciliation.

The project of reconciliation is truly a whole-of-society project, with indigenous peoples and members of settler cultures, like the vast majority of members here.

It just about breaks my heart to have heard most of the debate in this place today as Bill C-10 comes forward. People who have been watching, any of the viewing audience, I just want to tell them that there is a story here that they are not hearing. It is likely some later-day insomniac watching CPAC.

Yes, it has taken a long time to negotiate the modern treaties. Yes, we now have 26 modern treaties, and that represents an enormous effort of the comprehensive nature of the modern treaties. In 2003, just to give a sense of history, that is obviously 22 years ago, a group called the Land Claims Agreements Coalition came together. It recognized that it was different from the treaties that took place back in the 1700s, 1800s and into the early part of this century. They recognized that modern land claim treaties were different, and they came together despite the fact that we are talking about vastly different language groups and experiences on the land and relationships with the land. They were groups as different as the Carcross/Tagish First Nation; the Council of Yukon First Nations; the Gwich’in Tribal Council, way up on the border with Alaska, where the Gwich'in need and rely on the porcupine and caribou for their sustenance, just as the Tsawwassen First Nation's modern treaty relies on the salmon and a different ecosystem altogether, with a completely different language group; and significantly, of course, the Nunavut Tunngavik, which represents an enormous chunk of Canadian territory.

Just to give a sense of what it means to have a modern treaties coalition, that work is not done by just some kind of stakeholder group; they are people who have come together, chiefs from nations that are as vastly different as if the people of my riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands sat down with folks from downtown Toronto to decide what our priorities would be for grocery shopping for a potluck. We're different people from different places. It is a tribute to these first nations and peoples that they came together and formed this modern Land Claims Agreements Coalition.

The coalition is co-chaired by an extraordinarily gifted group of dedicated people. One current co-chair, Jeremy Tunraluk, is the president of Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., which has a huge land base. The other co-chair is the president of the Nisga'a Lisims Government, Eva Clayton. They work together. They came to Ottawa this week, and I met with many of the people who were in the leadership of the modern treaties agreements, the Land Claims Agreements Coalition.

What they came together to tell us about was how long they have worked to achieve what Bill C-10 proposes. How long have they worked for that? They worked, first, to get their land claims agreements put together, to have modern treaties established and to have them accepted by the Crown. Then, over a 20-year period, they consulted about how we were going to enact this and make it happen. These first nations, Métis and Inuit people, over a 20-year period, decided that what would work would be to have an independent auditing function embodied in the commissioner for modern treaty implementation.

This is something first nations, Métis and Inuit people decided, and they have been working to try to get the government to act upon it. They felt they were finally making progress on October 10, 2024, when Bill C-77, an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation, was tabled in this place.

I am not going to go back, because one thing that has been consistent through the day-to-day across the aisle is one party pointing at the other and saying it is the other's fault that nothing has happened so far. I am not going to go there, but I do remember why Bill C-77 did not get past first reading. We were rather stuck for a while. I am not going to discuss who was to blame for that, but Bill C-77 died on the Order Paper on January 6.

We are talking about what the peoples and the nations are asking us to do. If we are serious about reconciliation, then we must live up to the promise of 20 years of consultation in which the Government of Canada, under at least a few different prime ministers, said it would get this thing done and it would bring in, as a legislative priority, a commissioner of modern treaty implementation. It was a tool that was codeveloped over decades. It was brought forward for first reading almost a year ago now.

Bill C-77 died on the Order Paper when the House was prorogued by former prime minister Justin Trudeau, along with 25 other bills that died that day, and it has come back to us now. It was tabled for first reading on September 25, almost a full year after it started as Bill C-77, and it is now back word for word as Bill C-10.

There are the first nations and the leadership from the Land Claims Agreements Coalition, as well as all the different partners, such as the Déline Government and the First Nation of Nacho Nyak Dun. I mentioned some of the first nations, such as the Kluane First Nation, the Little Salmon Carmacks First Nation, the Toquaht Nation and the Teslin Tlingit Council. To all these people, if they have been watching Parliament today, all I can do is tell them how very sorry I am, because the last thing they expected to see was settler culture people saying that this is just a waste of time and that this will be a Liberal appointee.

This must be a commissioner who has the trust and faith of the indigenous people of this country and of the modern land claims agreements, the modern treaties. The peoples who entered into these modern treaties are saying, “If you're not serious about reconciliation, you might as well tell us now, because we've been patient.” What we were asked to do directly by the people in these land claims modern treaties is to pass Bill C-10 and to pass it quickly, as it does not need amendments.

I beg my colleagues on all sides of the House to take this small step for reconciliation. I ask them to pass the bill quickly and to not make it a political football. I ask them to be proud of themselves when they look in the mirror, so they can say they did their part to make up for the horrors of abuse. This is what we do: We pass Bill C-10.

[Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba, Liberal, Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill represents concrete, transformative progress in Canada's legal relationship with indigenous peoples. It would institute a long-term parliamentary accountability mechanism that is the product of genuine collaboration.

Can my colleague tell us today why our colleagues opposite are refusing to support this bill?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, we have some bad habits here.

No particular party is to blame. There are five parties here. We are at our best when we work together.

What we all need to do right now is ignore campaign sign colours. We just need to consider what is best for everyone.

Members should forget their party colours and do what is right.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to take a second to thank my colleague for her speech. I think it is the kind of speech that sets the tone we need to hear in the House of Commons.

Bill C‑10 is an important piece of legislation. It represents a significant milestone in modern treaty implementation and monitoring.

Not long ago, we celebrated the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. I admit that this day always makes me a little uncomfortable, because in my riding, like many others, situations arise, including environmental situations, that lead people to call on the federal government the other 364 days of the year, yet it never answers. After families are left in insecurity and people are abandoned to environmental harm, then people are expected to celebrate reconciliation.

I wonder whether my colleague has any comments on that situation.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Mirabel, a member of the Bloc Québécois, is right. There are other problems in his riding, like environmental justice or environmental and toxic threats. I know them well.

Bill C‑10 is not the answer to every problem facing indigenous peoples, but it is certainly a vital step in that direction and I would ask all of my colleagues to vote for it.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when my kids were younger, they used to sing a song that went, “Your talk talks and your walk talks, but your walk talks louder than your talk talks”. It feels to me that this member has a lot of experience in the House, certainly a lot more than I do. Does she feel truly confident that this is not just more talk from a bureaucracy that will do absolutely nothing to truly help create these treaties in the way they should be?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for a very fair question.

What I put my belief in is what the people who asked for this think, those who have co-created this proposal, this creation of a commissioner with audit and reporting powers and the ability to push and report to Parliament. It might not be what I would come up with, but who cares? I am a settler member of Parliament, and I work for first nations in my own community.

The modern treaty nations and the coalition worked on these issues day and night, and they have been patient. This is what they want.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on this idea of having a commissioner, someone who is appointed for seven years. When we look at the appointment process itself, I suspect we are going to see someone with an immense amount of real-life experience, who brings a lot of knowledge to the table that even the Auditor General would not be able to reflect on when it comes time to present a report. I wonder if she could provide her thoughts on the potential of the individual taking the position and the many attributes he or she might be able to bring to the table in coming up with recommendations.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that it is not for me to imagine the attributes.

I asked the leaders of the Land Claims Agreements Coalition whether they had been thinking about what attributes the commissioner would have, what kind of person it would be. Yes, they are confident they will be consulted. Yes, they are confident this person will have the kind of wisdom and the attributes that come from an indigenous world view to bring forward, to hold to account any government, the current government or the next government, through audit, pressure, transparency and the first word, of course, of the late Murray Sinclair in his work as commissioner, “truth” and reconciliation. This commissioner could get to the truth and report it back. That is an essential step in reconciliation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, again, what I am looking at is the idea of an investment. One of the criticisms of the legislation from the Conservatives is the cost factor. I would ultimately argue that the cost is easily justified by looking at what the commissioner is going to be able to do, not only from within indigenous communities, but in Canada as a whole, especially if we factor in the need for reconciliation.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would, again, ask colleagues to consider what we have before us as an opportunity in this country to reimagine ourselves. Canada is the best country in the world, there is no question, but could we not, as the Order of Canada's slogan says, desire a better country? This does not mean somewhere else; this means here. Becoming a better country means facing a legacy of abuse and recognizing that this will cost some money, but it is a pittance. It is crumbs off the table compared to what we owe indigenous people across Turtle Island for taking their land, stealing their culture and banning them from speaking their own languages. Land back is an essential part. These modern treaties are progress, but if they stall, they are not progress; they are just another broken promise.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague across the way's thoughts on this topic. I think one of the greatest frustrations I have had throughout the debate today is the fact that nothing is stopping the current government, the Liberal government, from moving forward on modern treaties today. It is creating another officer of Parliament in this legislation, to presumably hold it accountable, but we have seen, time and time again, the government not listening to reports from the Auditor General, whose job it is to hold the government to account and shed light on those areas and those gaps right now.

I am wondering if the member shares my concern and the concern from this side of the aisle that this could turn into just another situation in which the Liberal government is ignoring the recommendations and the information brought forward.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, again, this is a very fair question. No one in the opposition parties is going to say it is a good idea because it belongs to one party or another. If the Conservatives had formed government, I would say the same thing: It could just be something they say they are going to do. With the Liberals there is also a track record.

I do not want to make this partisan. All I know is this: I am humbled by the extraordinary patience of the peoples and the chiefs. The Land Claims Agreements Coalition has worked for more than 20 years now to get to this point where, through consultation and co-operation, it came up with this proposal. It will not solve all of the problems, and we will have to hold it accountable too, but right now, if this dies or if it takes too long to pass, I do not know why first nations, Métis or Inuit people would believe a single word out of our mouths ever again, any of us, from any party.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure to participate in the debate through questions and comments today, and it is an honour to finally be able to rise and deliver my remarks on this important topic. Before I get into the substance of that, I would like to mention that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington. He is a great colleague, and he has a wealth of knowledge on a number of subjects. I look forward to hearing his comments very shortly, but before that, members will have to endure my own comments, so I apologize for that.

We are here discussing Bill C-10 respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation. Before addressing the substance of Bill C-10 directly, I want to state unequivocally that, for myself and for the Conservative Party of Canada, we support the treaty rights of all indigenous peoples and the process of reconciliation. We also know that more needs to be done to support self-determination and self-government for first nations and indigenous communities across the country. There has been progress, and steps have been taken along the way, but there is much more that needs to be done when it comes to fostering that self-government.

As mentioned a few times in debate and in discussion on this piece of legislation, I am very proud that the last Conservative government got five modern treaties done within a six-year time frame. That is something that brings me great pride. Of course, I was not around for that government. I was not voting yet; I was not of age to do that at that point, but nonetheless, it is something that brings me some pride. If we contrast that with the record we have seen from the Liberal government, it has been in power for a decade and has achieved zero modern treaties. That is definitely a cause for concern, which has been mentioned many times in the discussion today. That is why so many people across the country, particularly indigenous leaders, are calling for change.

I want to talk a bit about the history. I think it is important to note that this has been a long process, this modern treaty process. It goes all the way back to 1973 when the Supreme Court decision recognized indigenous rights. In fact, it was the first time indigenous land rights were recognized in Canadian law. Modern treaties were a result of that, and these treaties enabled indigenous people to build their nations and communities on their own terms, addressing matters from use of land to resources and from economic development to environmental protections, and many more important aspects of their nations.

It is one thing to sign these treaties. It is another thing to honour them. I think that goes for the historical treaties as well. I come from a district in northwestern Ontario that includes, with the redistribution, 38 first nation communities across the territories of Treaty Nos. 3, 5 and 9. I live in Kenora, Ontario, which is part of Treaty No. 3. I hear constantly from indigenous leaders and non-indigenous residents about the need to honour the treaty and honour the intent of the treaty. That is something the government is still not living up to when it comes to those historical treaties, never mind the modern treaties.

I just wanted to put that out there, because I think it is easy for politicians to talk about and it is easy for the government to say the right thing, but it is the follow-through and actual honouring of the treaties that is of utmost importance.

That brings me to the Liberal record. We have heard lots of promises and seen very little action over the last 10 years. When it comes to drinking water, something the government made big promises on, if memory serves me correctly, 2019 was the year all the drinking water advisories were supposed to have been eliminated. We know that many persist today, and many are in northern Ontario.

We have heard big promises on infrastructure beyond that, in first nations and in indigenous communities, that the government does not live up to. We have had discussions today about the TRC calls to action and the fact that the vast majority of these calls to action remain incomplete. I believe, within the scope of what the federal government can control, by my count, only 10 of the federal calls to action have been completed.

Another issue is that which we will be getting into at the indigenous and northern affairs committee shortly, and that is first nations policing, by no doubt an essential service but something that has not been designated as such. It was in the fall of 2022 that Marco Mendicino was the minister of public safety; he said it was just around the corner and that there would be legislation coming that fall. That was three years ago, and we have seen nothing since.

It has been crickets from this government in terms of recognizing the essential work that first nation police services do, and I have heard so many stories from the first nations police services in my riding about the fact that they are hamstrung and stuck in a box where the federal government is dictating where dollars can go, sometimes toward things that they do not necessarily need. That money could be repurposed for something much more useful, but the bureaucrats in Ottawa are prescribing where those dollars should flow, and that makes it much more difficult for them to do their work effectively. That is not to mention the restrictions placed on first nations police officers in terms of the roles, responsibilities and authorities they have.

Whenever we see these issues, it does not really seem to matter what the topic is. The government's plan is to throw money at it, to create a bureaucracy, to create more jobs in the government service in Ottawa and to walk away. We have seen that in a lot of cases, even from members of the Liberal government today, speaking in the House and talking about how much money they have spent, as if that is their measure of success: “We spent this much money, so look at us; we are doing great, and we care.” That is nice, but what are those dollars achieving? That is the most important thing, and what we are seeing right now is that the dollars are bloating the government bureaucracy and not getting to the communities and the folks who need it.

Unfortunately, I fear that this legislation will be more of the same, because the Liberal government can agree to modern treaties now. They do not need this extra layer of accountability, as they call it. They do not need this commissioner to do any of that work. They have that authority, and I believe that this is just a distraction from the fact that they have done nothing over the last 10 years.

In extension of that, this is a time when our deficit is soaring. Canadians are struggling. It is certainly not the time for more bureaucracy and more government spending. It is clearly time for action.

On top of that, we already have accountability mechanisms within the government. The Auditor General has completed nearly two dozen reports since 2005. The auditor does this important work, holding the government accountable and shining lights on the issues that exist and the gaps that exist, but I cannot think of a time that the Liberals have actually accepted a report and put it into action. Report after report is getting put up on the shelf and collecting dust. We have the Auditor General doing this work already.

We also have additional federal offices that were created to work on land claim implementation issues, like the modern treaty implementation office, the assessment of modern treaties implications office, the deputy minister oversight committee and the reconciliation secretariat. There are many mechanisms, offices and bureaucrats in place to hold this government to account. Creating one more and expecting that it is the one that the government is finally going to listen to does not give me a lot of hope, and I can assure members that when I talk to the first nations leaders across northwestern Ontario, no one is saying that the answer to their problems and the concerns they are facing is going to be more bureaucrats in Ottawa.

In conclusion, we do not need more bureaucracy and deficit spending from the Liberals. I suggest, if this Liberal government wanted to honour its commitments and be accountable, it should actually consider doing the jobs it can do right now and that it has the power to do. Another officer highlighting what the Liberals are doing wrong would not compel them to act. Only they have the power to act, and first nations across the country and indigenous communities across the country are hoping to see that action from the government right now.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, I sit with my colleague on the INAN committee and appreciate his views and questions.

The member talked a bit about some of the rights that the previous Conservative government promoted, but he did not once mention the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which Stephen Harper and Conservatives voted against at the United Nations, whereas we as a federal government implemented it, turned it into action and ensured that we followed up with the implementation of UNDRIP.

I know the member just went through training yesterday with the KAIROS blanket exercise, as did I, and we heard from youth in his riding. I wonder if he can share a bit of what he heard from the youth and what he learned during that KAIROS blanket exercise that can help us with the debate we are currently having.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate working with the member opposite as well at committee. We have done some great work together. Of course, we do not agree on everything, as everyone will know, but I appreciate the opportunity to work with him.

Yes, it was great to have the blanket exercise yesterday, at which there were youth from the Mishkeegogamang First Nation in my riding, a community I have had the opportunity to visit quite often. It was great to hear their perspective on issues that they want addressed, from education to supports for mental health and addictions. It was an incredible opportunity to hear first-hand the concerns they are facing. I appreciated the opportunity, as did the committee, to have that local context as well and to share a piece of my riding with the rest of the members.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives often talk about accountability, but only when it suits them, it seems. For them, reconciliation seems to be nothing more than a slogan, used only when it suits their vision.

They are telling us that Bill C-10 creates too much bureaucracy. Real bureaucracy is when the federal government announces, promises and repeats things without ever delivering results. That is real bureaucracy.

We understand that the bill is not perfect. We would like the commissioner to have more power to enforce. People have been calling for this for the past 20 years, even when the Conservatives were in power under Stephen Harper.

Will my colleague support Bill C-10 today, or will he once again turn a blind eye, claiming that this involves too much bureaucracy and that, ultimately, it does not suit their interests?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, very clearly, as I said in my remarks, what Parliament and, I suggest, the government need to do is move forward on modern treaties, first nations policing, clean drinking water and infrastructure. All of these issues help support self-determination and self-government. We do not need more bureaucrats, departments and offices to tell the government to do that. We have an Auditor General who has done great work holding the government to account. I hope the government listens to all of the reports and recommendations and puts them into action.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as repeated throughout the day by my colleagues, Conservatives support modern treaties. There are concerns that with Bill C-10, the establishment of an independent commissioner and office would create additional government bureaucracy.

I would ask my colleague from Kenora—Kiiwetinoong to please expand on whether the commissioner would duplicate the work of the Auditor General.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the great work of my colleague in this chamber. He has been a valuable addition to our team, and I look forward to serving with him over the course of this term and, hopefully, beyond.

I agree completely with the member's assessment of things. The commissioner would duplicate work that is already being done by the Auditor General and other officers of Parliament, as I have already alluded to. This is just more bureaucracy. It is not more accountability. The Liberal government is trying to distract from its failed record. It is time it gets to work and stops distracting.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to this place.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-10, an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation. While the Liberal government claims this bill would improve accountability and help with reconciliation, my Conservative colleagues and I must oppose it.

Let me very clear from the outset. Conservatives fully support treaty rights, negotiations and the ongoing process of reconciliation with Canada's first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. We recognize the importance of advancing self-determination and self-government. This is a priority we all share. However, this bill would miss the mark. Instead of addressing the real issues, it proposes creating another layer of bureaucracy, an expensive new office here in Ottawa that would audit the government's performance and report to Parliament.

What would that really accomplish? The answer is very little, because the government already has the tools for oversight. The Office of the Auditor General conducts regular audits into treaty negotiations, modern treaties, self-governance agreements, implementation and treaty land entitlements. It has completed nearly two dozen audit reports, including six audits on indigenous treaty implementations, since 2005. These reports clearly show where the federal government has fallen short.

What the Liberal government is saying through the introduction of this bill is that it prefers to audit itself as opposed to having the independent Office of the Auditor General do the work. Why spend more taxpayer dollars at a time when Canadians are struggling with affordability, inflation and growing inflationary deficits in order to create another bureaucracy, a new one, to tell us what we already know? We do not need that. We need action.

This is not a structural failure of oversight. This is a failure of political will and leadership. The ministers and the departments that they lead are responsible for ensuring that treaty negotiations and implementation happens effectively and transparently. This is what Canadians deserve of their government. On that note, under the Conservative government led by Stephen Harper, we negotiated five modern treaties within just six years. What about the Liberals? They have been in power for nearly 10 years and have negotiated how many? They have negotiated zero.

For almost a decade, we have been bombarded with flashy announcements. The Liberals tell us they are in negotiations with 70 indigenous groups and we are supposed to believe they are doing something substantial, but here is the truth: It is nothing but a public relations exercise. These are announcements designed to impress the public, with no real outcomes. It is 10 years and there is not a single modern treaty deal.

Now, the Liberals want to create a commissioner for modern treaty implementation and present it to the Canadian public as a new office, a new title and a new bureaucracy. However, do not be fooled. This is not about achieving results; this is about avoiding scrutiny. This is not about the heart of the problem. The government does not want transparency. It does not want accountability. It wants to create another office that looks good on paper but does nothing to ensure that the indigenous communities see the benefits of real, concrete treaty implementation. It is all about appearance, not action. This is a failure, plain and simple, and it is the indigenous peoples of Canada who pay the price.

I know reconciliation is not easy and we do not claim that it will ever be so, but it does require honest, transparent communication and mutual respect between indigenous and non-indigenous communities. It requires the government to stop standing in the way with secrecy and indecision.

Let me elaborate. My riding includes the Caldwell First Nation, which, incidentally, is located within a kilometre of where I presently live, and I recently joined the first nation for its first annual competitive powwow this past August. Caldwell First Nation concluded a settlement agreement, which culminated a decades-long process. In 1998, the Liberal government reached a settlement agreement in principle with Caldwell, but never followed through. It was the Conservative government led by former prime minister Stephen Harper that returned to the table in 2006 and finalized that $105-million settlement by 2010, which was then ratified by the community.

The Caldwell First Nation officially secured reserve status in November 2020. This settlement did not hand over land directly, but set a 30-year timeline for the community to purchase properties at market value, from willing sellers to willing buyers, and then go through a federal additions-to-reserve process. This, too, is reconciliation in action: willing buyers and willing sellers working together, not a top-down Ottawa mandate.

Unfortunately, the current Liberal government is not living up to that standard of transparency or respect for local municipalities and first nations. In July of this past year, a status report on claims by the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs was provided to a neighbouring municipality that had inquired about the status of a second claim made by the Caldwell First Nation. The information presented to the public regarding the status of that claim clearly stated that the second claim was not accepted for negotiations. However, behind closed doors, it has been revealed that this claim is considered open and is actively being used in land acquisition negotiations.

It is this uncertainty that has caused tensions and concern for both Caldwell First Nation and the neighbouring municipality, which found themselves negotiating with the Government of Canada over the same piece of property. It is this type of inconsistent communication and lack of transparency that has caused first nations and neighbouring communities to have strained relationships due to misunderstandings.

When information cannot be trusted, relationships between first nations and neighbouring communities are broken, stopping the advancement of reconciliation for everyone involved. This secrecy does a disservice to all Canadians. It hinders reconciliation. It undermines the ability of indigenous communities and their neighbours to work together on the basis of mutual respect. Both first nations and non-indigenous communities require clarity to plan their futures responsibly.

This is a failing of government to do its due diligence of communicating to all parties in a treaty or settlement process. This is not something that will be fixed by adding another layer of bureaucracy within which the information has another chance to be lost, confused or misplaced from the public record.

Reconciliation cannot be forced or imposed by Ottawa. It cannot be a one-sided declaration or a hidden agenda. It requires honest, open and transparent communication by all parties: indigenous and non-indigenous communities and the federal government itself. The current government seems more interested in creating new bureaucratic offices to audit and then report on itself, rather than rolling up its sleeves and getting the job done. Reconciliation must be built on mutual respect, open communication and transparency. It requires all sides to have a seat at the table and, most importantly, to know what is on the table in the first place.

Bill C-10 would do nothing to fix these problems. It proposes yet another office, another layer and another report, all while the government continues to withhold basic information about the status of existing claims. That is not reconciliation; that is obstruction.

Let me be clear: My comments are not about opposing oversight. They are about opposing wasteful and ineffective oversight when existing tools, offices and audits are being ignored or sidelined. Bill C-10 risks spending more taxpayer dollars on bureaucrats who will audit the government's own failures without addressing the underlying issues. Rather than demanding accountability from the “Ottawa knows best” bureaucrats, the Liberals propose creating more new layers of bureaucracy and spending more money at a time when Canadians can ill afford it.

What Canadians need is political will and action. They need ministers who take responsibility and provide direction, and departments that follow through on commitments and the direction provided.

If the Liberal government is serious about reconciliation, if it truly wants to honour the treaty process, then it must stop hiding behind additional bureaucracies and start doing the hard work, and it is hard work, that these audits have already identified and that reconciliation demands.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused. I have been hearing the Conservatives talk about how many modern-day treaties they signed under Stephen Harper. On the one hand they are bragging about how many treaties they have signed, and on the other hand, they are saying that they are not going to vote for oversight or for someone to ensure that implementation and education around the modern treaties are in place.

I am wondering how it is that Conservatives can brag about the treaties, but when it comes to actually implementing those treaties and having oversight and a commissioner to do so, they vote against it, just like they voted against UNDRIP and just like they voted against clean water for first nations communities. How can the Conservatives stand up with any credibility and talk about indigenous issues?

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member. I know that his heart is in first nations communities and indeed all of Canada.

The Conservatives support accountability. They support oversight. In fact, we go through an exercise here on a daily basis at two o'clock where we hold the government to account. That is part of our democratic process.

The process of implementation and holding the government to account for the treaties negotiated should be done through the mandates instructed to the ministers. Then the House has the function, the duty, to hold the government to account for the implementation of the very treaties the government negotiates. What we do not need is another bureaucratic process where the government looks at itself.

We have the opportunity to do this right now through ministerial mandates and through the accountability mechanism right in this chamber.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his rather nuanced speech. He says that he agrees with continuing the reconciliation process and implementing modern treaties, but that he views the commissioner position as bureaucracy.

In that case, there are two options. The commissioner could be given more of an enforcement role and more powers so that the position is not just bureaucratic. Otherwise, what mechanism does the member propose to facilitate modern treaty implementation?

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will discount the first option, because that is another unneeded layer when the mechanisms exist. As I outlined in my first response to my colleague across the way, the ministers have this authority. The Auditor General has already done the job, and I can list the six audits that have been provided.

Why can the minister not empower and direct the departments to implement? That accountability mechanism exists, and the oversight of the minister exists through the processes we go through here on a daily basis, at two o'clock every day and 11 o'clock on Fridays.

I will go with the expanded second option from my hon. colleague from the Bloc.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a theme emerging with the government, and that theme is the expansion and creation of more and more government bureaucracy.

I wonder if my colleague could highlight one more time for the House why, at a time when the Parliamentary Budget Officer has raised the alarm about the government's spending, we do not need any more government bureaucracy when the checks and balances already exist in government.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I stated in my speech, we are not opposed to oversight. We are not opposed to the effective functioning of government.

We will see, on October 35, what exactly the state of our nation's finances are in. Additional spending that does not lead to meaningful outcomes for the benefit of Canadians in both indigenous and non-indigenous communities does not perform anything other than add to our inflationary debt.

What we do not need is another function that can audit without the authority to compel. Those two things, the combination of the Auditor General's office and the ministerial functions that have the authority to compel, are the two ingredients we need in order to address the shortcomings of these treaties. We are not there yet; I acknowledge that, but we have the tools. What we are missing is the political will to enact those tools.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge, Public Safety; the hon. member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, Public Safety; and the hon. member for Calgary Crowfoot, Housing.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to note that I will be sharing my time with the Member for Yukon.

Kwe kwe. Ullukkut. Taanshi.

I would like to say hello to everyone.

To begin, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge that we are gathered today on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe nation, who have been the custodians of these lands since time immemorial.

It is with deep respect and a sense of responsibility that I rise today to support Bill C‑10, which seeks to create the role of a commissioner for modern treaty implementation, an initiative that is essential to advancing reconciliation in our country.

This initiative is part of a commitment to advance reconciliation and hold the Government of Canada accountable for its relationships, objectives and obligations under modern treaties. To build a better future, we must first look back, learn from the past and acknowledge the wrongs that have marked our history.

For too long, relations between indigenous peoples and the Government of Canada have been marked by colonial and paternalistic policies that have caused harm and left a legacy of injustice. Recognizing this truth is a first step toward reconciliation. That said, reconciliation must be followed up by deliberate, sustained and adaptable measures.

Governments and associations must work in true partnership with indigenous peoples to address systemic inequalities and uphold indigenous rights. Only through meaningful change can we begin to rebuild trust and move forward together.

The Government of Canada is committed to working in partnership with indigenous peoples to advance shared priorities such as health care, food security, housing, education, economic prosperity, environmental protection, climate change and emergency management.

The importance of meaningful partnerships with indigenous peoples is also recognized in the One Canadian Economy Act, recently passed by the House of Commons. Given that indigenous peoples have been stewards of the lands and waters of Turtle Island since time immemorial, economic strategies anchored in collaboration and partnership with them will be essential to ensuring lasting prosperity for all.

We are making real progress, but there is still work to be done to strengthen our partnerships and advance reconciliation. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission's 94 calls to action are the foundation of all our work. These calls to action provide a road map for addressing systemic inequalities, supporting cultural revitalization and honouring treaty obligations, including modern treaty obligations.

By committing to the calls to action and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, we are working to ensure that indigenous peoples have the means to make decisions affecting their lands, rights and future.

Concretely and more specifically, establishing a commissioner for modern treaty implementation is consistent with action 9 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples action plan, which calls for the establishment of an independent oversight mechanism for modern treaty implementation. This is part of a broader commitment to work with indigenous partners to strengthen how treaties are upheld and implemented through better oversight, greater transparency and closer collaboration.

The commissioner would not be just an observer. They would be the embodiment of real change, one that would see Canada keep its word, deliver on promises and honour modern treaties as pillars of our democracy.

Beyond the principles, let me provide real examples of the progress that has been made, such as entering into a self-government treaty with the Whitecap Dakota First Nation. This is a decisive step toward ensuring that indigenous rights are upheld. This agreement affirms the inherent right of first nations to self-government, so they have a say in decisions affecting their communities under its self-government treaty.

This self-government treaty is really about unique self-governance. The Whitecap Dakota First Nation can continue to build on its success and improve the well-being of the community in the future. Agreements like these are transformative. They aim to improve the living conditions and livelihoods of indigenous peoples, establish an enduring framework for reconciliation agreed upon by all parties, and foster ongoing relations between the Crown and indigenous peoples.

We all know that more needs to be done to ensure that we keep our promises and commitments. The creation of a commissioner for modern treaty implementation represents a decisive step toward reconciliation between indigenous peoples and the federal government.

This measure would help advance reconciliation in three ways: by bringing to light systemic problems in modern treaty implementation; by promoting the full, effective, and timely implementation of modern treaties; and by fostering better relationships with modern treaty partners. The commissioner's work would have a ripple effect, particularly by raising public awareness of modern treaties and addressing systemic implementation issues that hinder indigenous self-government and economic development.

However, reconciliation cannot be limited to policies or institutions; it must also reside in our country's collective conscience. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada wrote the following in its final report: “Too many Canadians still do not know the history of Aboriginal peoples' contributions to Canada, or understand that by virtue of the historical and modern Treaties negotiated by our government, we are all Treaty people.”

We all have a responsibility to take action to promote reconciliation. By providing public reviews and reports to Parliament and making the treaty implementation process more efficient and transparent, the commissioner can contribute to society's commitment to education and reconciliation in general. However, awareness only goes so far. We know that the Government of Canada has not upheld some of the commitments made in modern treaties. This legislation would help address those gaps in a more specific and targeted way.

For example, some indigenous communities have had trouble accessing the resources, lands or land management promised in modern treaties. Other communities have faced delays in moving forward on essential infrastructure, education and health care initiatives. By actively overseeing modern treaty implementation, the commissioner would help address persistent systemic inequality and advance reconciliation.

Indigenous languages and cultural practices are essential to indigenous spirituality and identity, as well as to the preservation of traditional knowledge. The Government of Canada recognizes this and has already taken steps in this area, as evidenced by the passage of the Indigenous Languages Act and the appointment of the indigenous languages commissioner.

However, as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada stated in its call to action 14, the preservation, revitalization and strengthening of indigenous languages and cultures are best managed by indigenous people and communities. To that end, Canada must fulfill its commitments through effective implementation. By ensuring that Canada keeps the promises it has made under modern treaties, the commissioner would support the long-term growth and vitality of indigenous cultures and languages.

Strengthening relations with modern treaty partners through improved engagement and consultation is central to this approach. That is what we have done in developing this bill, and that is what we intend to do in the future. Once this bill is passed, the commissioner will encourage continued collaboration and consultation on the implementation of modern treaties. The commissioner will help us uphold the principle of “nothing about us without us” by recognizing the distinct experiences of first nations, Inuit, and Métis partners, including partners—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member's time has expired. We will move on to questions and comments.

The member for Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, between 2013 and 2023, federal employment surged by 36%. By contrast, the private sector grew by 13%.

How big is this new bureaucracy, this new office, going to be? How many new public sector employees does the government plan to hire?

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the issue is much more important than bureaucracy, but I would answer the question in the negative. It is an accountability mechanism. No, the position of commissioner will not create red tape. It will ensure that commitments are kept and that resources are used effectively and efficiently. That is what our government is aiming for.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals keep saying that they want to advance reconciliation. However, four months ago, not four years ago, they passed Bill C‑5, which deals with nation-building projects, without consulting first nations. This was criticized by the Assembly of First Nations and by Inuit and Métis communities.

Today, the Liberals are proposing Bill C‑10. They would create the position of a commissioner for modern treaty implementation without giving the commissioner any real powers. The commissioner would have no teeth. They would be able to examine the situation and make recommendations, but their hands would be tied. They would not be able to make binding recommendations.

Are the Liberals afraid of actual accountability, which would force them to face up to their unfulfilled promises to first nations?

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by answering the last part of my colleague's question. Are the Liberals scared? Obviously the answer is no.

Establishing this commissioner means establishing a mechanism for transparency and oversight. I hope that members across the way will vote in favour of establishing this commissioner. Contrary to what my colleague is saying, I think that by establishing this commissioner, the Liberals are taking their transparency responsibilities seriously and will thereby earn the trust of all Canadians, including indigenous peoples.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think of Bill C-10 as definitely warranted. It is before us today because of a great deal of effort by indigenous community leaders in response to needing modernized treaties, which will ultimately build a stronger and healthier social and economic society. I see having an agent of Parliament that reports to Parliament as a positive thing.

I wonder if my colleague can provide his thoughts on how important it is that we recognize the true value of these agreements. They help us build a stronger Canada.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course, it is very important to recognize the agreements. As I said, it is a matter of moving from agreement to action, but these are actionable variables that must be monitored and supervised. Ultimately, what we are putting in place is not simply an administrative measure. It is a renewed promise, that of a Canada where we do not just talk about reconciliation, but where we truly live it. We want to experience this reconciliation, with a strong economy and also with the oversight of a commissioner. I hope that the entire House will support implementing this process.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, why did the government choose not to place the new commissioner under the independent oversight of the Office of the Auditor General, where accountability and transparency are already well established? This would give first nations, Métis and Inuit partners greater confidence in the commissioner's impartiality.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question, which is a very good one.

I would simply say that we want to give this commissioner the freedom to pursue intergovernmental relations and relations with the regions. My colleague's proposal would complicate the process, and that is what we want to avoid.

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, kwe kwe, ulaakut, taanshi and hello. I would like to start by acknowledging that Canada's Parliament is located on the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin people.

I am honoured to be speaking here today about the critical role of the commissioner for modern treaty implementation would play so that Canada lives up to the promises we have made in modern treaties. By living up to our promises, we can help secure a better future for modern treaty partners and all Canadians.

Modern treaties are a distinct expression of reconciliation between indigenous peoples and the Crown. They create enduring intergovernmental relationships that improve the lives and livelihoods of indigenous people and advance national socio-economic objectives that benefit all people in Canada.

In the 50 years since the first modern treaty was signed, the number of modern treaties has continued to grow. Since 1975, the Government of Canada and indigenous partners have worked together to negotiate 27 modern treaties that have positive and long-lasting impacts on socio-economic outcomes for indigenous people and all people in Canada. Many more are being negotiated. I am talking about positive effects like economic and infrastructure development, sustainable land management and more control over the affairs of indigenous communities by indigenous governments.

The work overseen by the commissioner for modern treaty implementation would pave the way to help future generations achieve the successes that today's generations are working toward.

Modern treaties can drive greater economic development and encourage indigenous businesses ownership. For example, the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation Final Agreement made it possible for the first nation to acquire a significant stake in Air North, Yukon's airline. This investment provides economic sustainability for the first nation, jobs for its citizens and a transportation lifeline for the Vuntut Gwitchin people in Old Crow, which is Yukon's only fly-in community. This investment also benefits Air North's hundreds of employees and those who fly in and around the Yukon.

In Nunavut, a landmark achievement through the Nunavut Agreement has recognized Inuit rights, granting Inuit ownership of about 350,000 square kilometres of land. It provides for the establishment of Nunavut as a territory, which spans nearly two million square kilometres, one-fifth of Canada's total land mass. It has also granted mineral rights for over 35,000 square kilometres.

This empowers Inuit to participate in decision-making regarding land, water and wildlife management, ensuring sustainable resource use. More importantly, it provides Inuit with a means of participating in economic opportunities in these areas. These are examples of how modern treaties can strengthen the social, cultural and economic fabric of indigenous communities while providing benefits to surrounding communities.

We know that a strong economy, more jobs, improved infrastructure and support for clean energy can only be achieved through a full partnership with indigenous people. Economic prosperity will not come from participating in the process alone; it must include ownership and leadership. That is why we have doubled the indigenous loan guarantee program from $5 billion to $10 billion.

We recognize, however, that access to capital remains a challenge, especially for smaller and remote communities and those seeking to fund the initial stages of credit. That is why we are working to make equity pathways, procurement opportunities and direct investments in community-led projects more accessible and transparent.

Another example of a promising project is being led by the Nisga'a Nation. It is seeing booming economic development, including taking on the role as a proponent for major projects. For example, the Nisga'a Nation is codeveloping, along with its partners, the Ksi Lisims LNG project, which is a proposed floating liquefied natural gas export facility located on a site owned by the Nisga'a Nation near the community of Gingolx in British Columbia. The project will have a capacity of 12 million tonnes of LNG per year. The Nisga'a Nation is also codeveloping the Prince Rupert gas transmission pipeline. As a codeveloper of these projects, the Nisga'a Nation has meaningful input in all aspects of the project, reflecting the Nisga'a Nation's commitment to stewardship of their land and people.

Along with driving economic development, many modern treaty partners have implemented training and education programs tailored to their community needs. For instance, the Nisga'a Lisims Government has invested in vocational training programs, leading to higher employment rates and more skilled labour within the community. Its bilateral agreement with Canada—

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.

The interpretation is not working.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I am told that the interpretation is not working right now.

Interpretation is good now.

The hon. member for Hamilton Centre is welcome to restart his time. He has just under four minutes left.

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Nisga'a Lisims Government's bilateral agreement with Canada for the delivery of the indigenous skills and employment training program for Nisga'a citizens has resulted in the opening of the Nisga'a employment, skills and training program, which helps Nisga'a citizens thrive and succeed in a rapidly developing economy by helping them find meaningful and demand-driven employment.

Along with supporting training and skills development, modern treaties can also lead to more infrastructure development, which is critical to communities. Modern treaties also emphasize the importance of environment management and stewardship, which can lead to greater stability and control over resources.

One example of this is the Gwich'in Renewable Resources Board. This board promotes the sustainable use of land and resources while preserving traditional practices, and it plays a leadership role in ensuring that the fish, forests and wildlife of the Gwich'in area remain healthy and sustainable. Its mandate is to work in the public interest, representing all parties to their modern treaty: the Gwich'in, the people of the Northwest Territories and all Canadians. This is an example of how modern treaties can support communities in finding new ways to protect, conserve and manage renewable resources.

The benefits of modern treaties in Canada are evident in improved social outcomes, building infrastructure and economic development for indigenous peoples. It is clear that these arrangements are making a real difference in people's lives. However, while significant progress has been made, there is still more to be done in implementing the commitments made in modern treaties. These successes are the good-news stories that show us what we can accomplish when we work together, but they occur against the backdrop of a persistent and crucial issue. There is an ongoing lack of awareness, understanding and action in the federal public service around modern treaty objectives, obligations and relationships. Sometimes, we still get it wrong.

When I say “costs”, I do not just mean the significant financial expenses. The biggest cost is losing chances to work together, because when implementation fails, it leads to conflict instead of partnership. When this happens, opportunities to achieve the kind of successes I spoke about earlier pass us by. This is why we need the commissioner, to give us a chance to take action today for a stronger, more resilient and more prosperous Canada tomorrow.

The proposed commissioner for modern treaty implementation would hold the federal government and future governments accountable for the implementation of modern treaties so that modern treaty partners and all Canadians are not made to bear the costs of opportunities missed because we did not live up to our promises. By living up to our promises, we can help secure a better future for modern treaty partners and all people in Canada. Modern treaties are already delivering results and making a difference; that is clear, but there is room to do even better, and the commissioner will help us do that.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the hon. member about responsible and accountable government. Does he feel that this piece of legislation is trying to mask the issue that the Liberals, over the last decade, have failed to secure any modern treaties across this country and have failed to live up to the modern treaties that have been signed over the last number of years? When Stephen Harper was prime minister, we signed five modern treaties, and we worked very hard to enable the relationship between Canada and first nations.

Would the member not agree that this bill is an admission of failure on the part of the Liberal government?

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member. The commissioner's main job would just be to check if the federal government is fulfilling its promises under modern treaties, working in good faith with indigenous partners and upholding the honour of the Crown. The commissioner would not settle disputes or give legal advice. Instead, they would do reviews, audits and briefings to see how government programs are working and share what they find with ministers, indigenous partners and the department.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of the bill. However, we see that nowhere does it provide for authority to compel the government to do anything. The commissioner will have no power.

We worry that it will be a bit like the Commissioner of Official Languages, whose office was established 50 years ago. For 50 years now, French has been in decline and francophone assimilation has been going up. Year after year, the commissioner has expressed concern about violations of the Official Languages Act. Recently, in the latest iteration of that legislation, the commissioner was given some enforcement powers.

If the commissioner position is established, does my colleague agree that the commissioner should have the authority to compel the government to implement new treaties?

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with 27 modern treaties covering over 40% of Canada's land mass, major development and infrastructure projects depend on partnership with indigenous modern treaty partners and compliance with modern treaty obligations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I respect what the member is saying and wanted to amplify that having a commissioner to deal with modern treaties is something that has been desired for a number of years now. We have the legislation before us. It would have a very positive impact to have an agent of Parliament who reports to Parliament in terms of the modern treaties and how modern treaties benefit Canadian society. I see it as a win-win-win.

I wonder if my friend can just comment on why he believes it is important for us as parliamentarians, on no matter what side of the House, to recognize the value of legislation and at least support the legislation going to committee and beyond.

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, these 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 participation in land management decisions, but they are only as strong as their implementation.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for answering my last question about accountable government and acknowledging that the commissioner is indeed needed because the Liberals have failed to live up to all of their hype and rhetoric. Once again, will the member answer a simple yes or no question? Will he admit that this bill is merely an admission of failure on the Liberal government's part?

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, not at all. This is not a failure; this is even progress that we have been making for the last 10 years in the Liberal government. Even before that, it was being done in the Harper government, so this is a continuity of that. There is not a failure happening in government.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be up here today to talk about accountable government and speak to Bill C-10. The government has put forward this piece of legislation, and I think it is a total admission of the Liberals' failure to keep first nations included in the Canadian economy and ensure first nations are part of the Canadian conversation. Therefore, one of the trinkets they are putting forward is the commissioner position, to acknowledge that they have been a failure over the last 10 years.

I want to talk about accountable government more broadly. People back home always say, “Arnold, you are part of the government,” but I say no, I am part of the opposition. The government is generally considered to be the front bench on the government side of the House. That is the government that lives inside of our legislative chamber. Unlike in the United States, where the administration lives outside of the legislative process, in Canada, in a parliamentary system, the government lives in the front bench, and that is the Prime Minister and his cabinet.

They direct the administration of our country, and they answer directly to the legislature. They are right here, and one of the key functions of this place is to hold the government to account, principally through question period. That is probably what people see the most. That is the Government of Canada. It then branches out from there to all the ministries, the ministry offices across the country, and the folks who work for those ministries would also be part of the government. Very soon, I hope to be part of the governing party of Canada, if not part of the government, Lord willing.

I also want to inform the House that I will be splitting my time.

When we talk about accountable government, this is an important part of Canadian history. This is something that this particular place fought vehemently for at the founding of Canada in response to being a colony of Great Britain, asking and pushing for our own responsible government. I would also point out that the responsible, accountable government that was fought for at that time was immediately put to the test in the riot reparations act that the brand new Canadian Parliament passed. It then ran out to ask the Governor General to not sign it into law, because the government had suddenly realized the ramifications of the riot reparations act. The Governor General at the time asked if we wanted a responsible, accountable government or not. He signed that into law, and the negative implications of it came to fruition. Parliament then reversed itself on that particular bill.

I tell that story just to point out that the things that happen in this place have an impact on Canadian society. I hope that is the case, and I know that to be the case. The point is that the Liberal government is the government of this country, and it has duties it has to implement. The Liberal government is classic in terms of causing a problem or failing to address a problem and then, rather than fixing the problem, coming back here for another piece of legislation and saying that this is the one that will fix the particular problem. In reality, it generally has the tools and ability to fix the particular problem or manage the particular issue or maintain the relationship around the world that it currently has.

We hear from the Liberals often that a particular UN document is demanding that they do something. Maintaining the relationship with first nations across this country, ensuring they are full participants in our economy and living up to the treaty obligations this country has signed onto are just basic functions of the government. We do not need a UN document or a UN declaration to tell us to do these things. The Government of Canada should be doing these things because we are upholding the honour of the Crown and we are upholding the things that make us this country.

In the case of the current government, it is the Government of Canada, and it should live up to its obligations. This means treaty obligations, keeping the peace in this country, working on maintaining our borders and reducing the crime. On all of these things, many times, we see total mismanagement, and then the Liberals come in here and say, “If we only had this piece of legislation.” We see this in front of us over and over again, with bills such as Bill C-2, Bill C-8 and Bill C-11, where the government is trying to solve problems it could already solve and is the cause of.

With Bill C-10, we see a classic case of Liberal mismanagement. We failed to sign new treaties across the country and failed to manage the relationship. We have seen the resource industry stalling out because of our inability to build major projects across this country, and now the Liberals are bringing this forward.

The other thing I find very interesting is that, although I say it is the tired old Liberal government, this is a “new” government, but we have yet to see any major new pieces of legislation. This is not a new piece of legislation from a new government. It is something that is long sought-after. The Liberal government has introduced this idea over and over again. This is not something new.

We are looking forward to the removal of Liberal bail. That would be a new piece of legislation. The reversal of Liberal bail in this country would be an impressive thing in order to get crime under control. That would be new, but this is not a new idea. This is something the Liberals have talked about for a long time, and now, because their legislative agenda is kind of empty, suddenly they are going to put it forward.

I am going to turn my attention to the Bloc. I always find it interesting when I agree somewhat with the Bloc. Bloc members are saying that this commissioner would not achieve anything, that it would not do anything, which is also kind of our position on this. It would not do anything and is just spending money for the sake of spending money, which, I acknowledge, is generally the Liberal test of success: Success is how much money it spends on a particular thing.

I point to the border. When we say the Liberals are failing to maintain our border and are allowing people to run across our border and things like that, their response is not that they are doing a good job managing the border; it is that they are spending more money managing the border than the Conservatives did and are therefore being successful. They are not. The problem is that the border is porous and unmanaged by the Liberals. If we could spend zero dollars to manage the border, I would be in favour of that as well. The amount of money the Liberals spend to manage the border is irrelevant if we are not getting the results we are looking for. Fundamental to an accountable government is who is responsible.

This commissioner is a distraction from the responsibilities of the government. The government is responsible for maintaining these relationships and cannot outsource it to a commissioner. It cannot outsource it. I guess the same goes for the Parliamentary Budget Officer, for example. Does his advice get followed by the Liberal government? No, not at all. Will this commissioner's advice be followed by the Liberal government? Maybe, or maybe not. The fundamental issue is the results the government has caused.

We see it over and again, whether it is with the Liberals' bail system, which they totally made a hatchet job of, border security or cybersecurity. Over and over again, the Liberals fail to be responsible for the issues the government is supposed to be responsible for in this country. We see a failure, and then suddenly the Liberals will say we need a particular piece of legislation in order to fix it. When we then look at that piece of legislation, it generally does something other than what they say it will do, or it fails to change anything.

I just want to put on the record that, in some weird way, we agree with the Bloc on this, that the commissioner would not do anything. I also want to close by stating that the bill is an admission by the Liberal government that its inabilities over the last number of years have led to failure.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that some Conservative members in the past have delayed indigenous legislation.

Seeing that there are certain modern treaty partners in Conservative ridings, like the Manitoulin Island first nations, the Tsawwassen First Nation and the Whitecap Dakota Nation, can the member opposite confirm that the relevant members have talked to or will talk to the modern treaty partners? What assurance will he provide that his party will work to pass the bill quickly, without any unnecessary delays, to help modern treaty partners in their respective ridings?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the member listened to my speech; however, I would remind her that the previous Conservative government signed five modern treaties over the course of the Conservative tenure of governing this country. Our relationship with first nations was managed. Our relationship to get major energy projects built in this country was a success. We look forward to the day when a Conservative government rules this country once again.

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

Mr. Speaker, throughout the day, we have heard a lot of misrepresentation of reality, if I can put it that way.

The Conservatives say that Harper signed five treaties. Well, he was elected prime minister in 2006, and one of the treaties was signed in 2006. He does get the credit; technically, he did sign it. Then the Conservatives say that the Liberals have not done any. That is not true. We have signed treaties. The Conservatives just have not done their homework, or they are intentionally trying to mislead the House. I suspect they have not done their homework.

My question to the member is this: Would he not agree that having an independent agent of Parliament who is supported by indigenous community leaders is something that all members should be supporting? It appears that just the Conservatives in the House are opposing it.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Before I recognize the member, the use of the term “intentionally misleading the House”, in almost all situations, is dangerously close to the line. I invite members to be careful when they respond to not do indirectly what they cannot do directly.

With that being said, I recognize the member for Peace River—Westlock.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out again that it is estimated that the commissioner would cost the Canadian government $2 million. That is deficit spending, I would point out. The fact is that first nations communities, along with all communities across this country, are struggling to put food on the table and to pay their heating bills.

Saying that we should do more deficit spending and deflate our money more does not, I think, help anybody.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives boast about being the best at reconciliation. This is what we have heard today. However, four months ago, they supported the Liberals' Bill C‑5, a bill dealing with nation-building projects that went against consultations with first nations.

Today, they are telling us that, in the Harper era, they signed more treaties than the Liberals, so they are the best. Today, they are telling us that they do not really agree with Bill C‑10, using bureaucracy as an excuse. They may be the best at accountability, but only when it suits them.

My question for my colleague is simple. Are the Conservatives not afraid that, in the event that they return to power, they would have to be accountable to a commissioner who we hope will have real teeth?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that comes just after all the nice things I said about the Bloc.

I would point out that, particularly on Bill C-5, we made significant amendments to ensure that, for example, the Lobbying Act would not be undermined by the bill. I understand that the Conservative members on committee for that bill made sure the projects would still be subject to conflict of interest and lobbying guidelines, and a number of other acts that apply. It would exempt them from Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, the anti-pipeline bill and the anti-tanker bill, respectively, because we think that those two pieces of legislation are standing in the way.

If the Liberals are willing to make an exemption from their own pieces of legislation again, an admission of Liberal failure, we would be happy to support that.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to acknowledge first of all, with respect, that we are gathered on the ancestral lands of the Algonquin Anishinabe people, and that these territories, unceded and unsurrendered, have been a place of meeting and exchange for centuries.

I am pleased to speak today to the proposed legislation to establish a commissioner for modern treaty implementation and what the next steps in the process would be. The bill is a priority for each modern treaty nation in the Yukon, and I am pleased to say that we have in the Yukon 11 self-governing nations with modern treaties.

The proposed legislation is timely, even on its reintroduction, because we should be reminded that the bill was introduced a year ago as Bill C-77 and died with prorogation. The need, though, is even more pressing now than before. The world is changing. Canada needs to be ready, and that means building an economy that can withstand whatever comes our way. We are doing that by creating more space and opportunities for indigenous leadership, innovation and economic inclusion.

The rights and collaboration of modern treaty partners are top of mind in all this work, so the bill represents a meaningful step forward in the Government of Canada's commitment to reconciliation and to the full and fair implementation of modern treaties.

Modern treaties are not just legal documents; they are foundational agreements that affirm indigenous rights, support self-government and build a framework for respectful nation-to-nation relationships, and they must be honoured with both word and action.

Setting up and rolling out the commissioner's office and making sure it works well are key. The next steps in how we build this office would shape the trust, effectiveness and lasting relationships needed to keep Canada's modern treaty promises.

My colleagues have highlighted the ways in which we have worked with modern treaty partners to codevelop Canada's collaborative modern treaty implementation policy, as well as an independent oversight body and the role of a commissioner tasked with holding Canada accountable for the implementation of modern treaties, and to shine a light on how federal programs and policies are or are not supporting their implementation.

The bill is about more than oversight, though; it is about trust. It is about ensuring that the commitments made in modern treaties are not only respected but also actively upheld with transparency, with accountability and with the full weight of Parliament behind them. This is especially important to the Yukon, where, as I stated, 11 of the 14 first nations have signed modern treaties and self-government agreements. Even in the Yukon, challenges persist when it comes to federal implementation. Too often, progress is slowed, and the bill would respond directly to those concerns.

We have worked closely with indigenous partners every step of the way to determine next steps. Codeveloping the proposal and legislation together was essential, not only to create a mutually agreed-upon process but also as a reflection of what Yukon first nations and others have long called for: a dedicated independent body to ensure that Canada lives up to the spirit and intent of its treaty processes, and a meaningful part of our journey toward reconciliation. As we go forward, the collaboration would continue.

Given the importance of the proposed new role, the appointed commissioner must have the confidence of both Parliament and modern treaty partners. That is why the appointment process would include direct consultation with modern treaty partners, going beyond the usual steps for other agents of Parliament. After receiving the recommendation from the minister following consultations, the Governor in Council would consult with the leader of every recognized party in the Senate and in the House of Commons. It would then seek the approval of the appointment by resolution of the Senate and the House of Commons. Once this is complete, the commissioner would be appointed under the Great Seal.

The steps I have outlined today are extensive and robust, and this is by design. These steps have been specifically requested by modern treaty partners to cement the credibility of the commissioner. These steps are in line with the appointment process for all other agents of Parliament, with the addition of the consultation of modern treaty partners.

Once the proposed appointment process happens, the next step would be standing up the commissioner's office. The commissioner would have the discretion to design and operationalize their office as they see fit. This step in the process would include the designation of the location of the head office by the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations. In engagement sessions, modern treaty partners asked for confirmation of funding to support the commissioner. It is integral that commissioners would be appropriately funded to carry out their work and mandate.

Once fully operational, the commissioner and their office would begin working to fulfill the mandate in the proposed bill by conducting reviews and/or performance audits of any activity carried out by the Government of Canada that relates to modern treaty implementation. The commissioner would determine the procedures, terms and methodology to be followed for each review or performance audit, after engaging with the relevant modern treaty partners. Consistent with other agents of Parliament, all final reports of reviews and performance audits would be submitted directly to the Speakers of both Houses of Parliament for tabling.

It is anticipated that the commissioner would complete their first audit or review report in the third year of the office's operation and would continue to complete reports of reviews or performance audits in subsequent years. Additionally, each calendar year, the commissioner would be required to prepare an annual report to Parliament. The annual report would be provided to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, who would submit it the Speakers of both Houses of Parliament for tabling. This is intended to give Parliament a direct line of sight into the operations of the commissioner and their office in the same way as with other agents of Parliament.

The work of the commissioner and the processes I have just shared have been specifically designed to, first and foremost, provide credibility, transparency and independence for the commissioner and their office. I hope the summary of the next steps, including the appointment of the commissioner, the standing up of their office and the completion of their first reports, has shed some light on our plan as we go forward.

Before I conclude, I want to highlight how important codevelopment has been in working and in moving the initiative forward, and I want to stress how vital it is to keep working closely with indigenous partners as the legislation moves ahead. As former AFN Yukon regional chief Kluane Adamek has said,

The creation of a Modern Treaty Commissioner marks a step forward in honouring the commitments Canada has made to First Nations and upholding the spirit and intent of these agreements. I commend the parties for this important work and strongly urge the Government of Canada to take all measures necessary to ensure this body is fully independent, adequately supported and resourced, and has the necessary powers to effectively fulfill its mandate.

The new role would create a significant shift in Crown-indigenous modern treaty relationships so that future governments are held accountable to Parliament for our modern treaty relationships, objectives and obligations.

It is essential to establish the commissioner's office with care and transparency, working closely alongside modern treaty partners. Doing this would help build trust so that the office can effectively carry out its important mandate. Getting it right means honouring the promises made and strengthening relationships based on respect and partnership.

We are hopeful that this important and transformative step will help Canada become a better modern treaty partner, one that is more trustworthy, accountable and transparent in its modern treaty relationships.

Meegwetch, qujannamiik, gunałchéesh, shä̀w níthän, sógá sénlá’, marsi cho.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as repeated throughout the day by me and my colleagues, Conservatives support modern treaties.

Bill C-10 would establish an independent commissioner and office, but the creation of this new office would add an extra layer of bureaucracy and costs by the government, and not a guarantee of meaningful change.

With regard to Bill C-10, on behalf of indigenous people throughout Canada, my question is as follows: What happens if a department continues to ignore treaty obligations?

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, that is an important question.

Modern treaty partners across the country are looking forward to the passage of the bill. It is important, as it is a way to ensure that there would be accountability. They have been let down many times by many governments on the implementation of modern treaties.

We all stand to be accountable for implementation of modern treaties, including the signing of modern treaties as we go forward. This would be the role of the modern treaty commissioner.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member is from the Yukon, and I cannot help but notice that there are so many communities from the Yukon that would be helped by the legislation.

I am sure the member has heard advocacy from Yukon first nations leaders over his time as a member of Parliament. I wonder if the member would share some of the information and advocacy from the first nations leaders of the Yukon who have been asking, over years and maybe generations, for this kind of legislation to move forward.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations for his tireless work on this file, including during the last Parliament, and for his advocacy.

The piece of legislation before us is an incredibly important one for Yukon first nations. I have heard repeatedly, in my four-plus years of holding the privileged position as a member of Parliament, from every self-governing first nation, about how important it is, not just for the position of commissioner but for robust and timely implementation of treaties. This is ongoing work in progress. It is often frustratingly slow from their point of view.

However, we are making progress. We need to continue to be held accountable and to commit, for whatever government, as we look forward in the decades to come, is in power, to ensuring that the commitment is sustainable and is sustained.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to explain how we can possibly trust the Liberal government and take it seriously right now.

This is the same government that totally betrayed first nations four months ago when it failed to consult them on a project in the national interest. Members will recall Bill C‑5, which was passed on closure with the support of the official opposition, the Conservative Party. The Conservatives do not brag too much about that, especially since it was a new government that was four weeks old. It was really unprecedented.

To come back to my question for my colleague, I wonder how we can trust people who did not consult first nations four months ago and who are also telling us today that they are going to establish a commissioner who will be an observer with no teeth.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question. Perhaps my colleague has overlooked the fact that the relationship with indigenous partners is part and parcel of Bill C‑5. This partnership is essential for projects in the national interest, and this government has committed to it. I hope that is something that all parties in the House will support.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretaries of State for Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Guelph.

Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that Canada's Parliament is located on the traditional, unceded and unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people whose presence here reaches back to time immemorial.

I am pleased to speak about the proposed commissioner for modern treaty implementation. The creation of this new position represents a commitment to transparency, to accountability and to building trust with modern treaty partners and Canadians at large. As my colleagues have mentioned, the legislation before us today would establish an independent agent of Parliament charged with holding the Government of Canada accountable for living up to our modern treaty obligations, objectives and, most importantly, relationships.

The “agent” status is significant. The agents of Parliament each focus on protecting vital principles of our country. For example, the Auditor General conducts audits of government departments and agencies to check if public funds are used effectively. The Privacy Commissioner protects Canadians' personal information. The Information Commissioner upholds the public's right to access government information, and the Commissioner of Official Languages protects the rights of Canadians to use either official language within federal institutions.

There are currently six agents of Parliament in Canada, and each one plays a crucial role in upholding democratic principles, accountability and protecting the rights of Canadians. However, despite the work that these agents of Parliament do, we know that there is a gap. We know that the rights of indigenous peoples in this country are not always protected or respected. Canada's new government is trying to do better on this front. We have been working together with indigenous peoples to build and strengthen nation-to-nation, Inuit-Crown and government-to-government relationships based on respect, the recognition of rights and the creation of partnerships to build a better future for all people in Canada.

Modern treaties recognize and protect the rights of indigenous peoples to their lands, resources and governance. What is more, modern treaties create the kinds of meaningful relationships that are fundamental to advancing reconciliation and shared prosperity. It is fitting then that the next agent of Parliament should be dedicated to strengthening these vital constitutional relationships.

This legislation would put us on a new pathway. We would be establishing a parliamentary institution focused on oversight and accountability for federal modern treaty implementation. The commissioner would lend a critical eye to Canada's actions in this space with the aim of advancing systemic change to improve implementation effectiveness. In practical terms, this means it will create transparency. The commissioner would shine a light on areas where the Government of Canada is not addressing persistent structural modern treaty implementation issues. By doing this, it would make Canada's actions in implementing modern treaties visible to all people in Canada, helping to hold the government to account.

In this way, the commissioner would help reduce process inefficiencies, supporting modern and effective modern treaty implementation and the positive economic, social and cultural impacts that it would have. The bottom line is that the commissioner would help Canada become a better treaty partner.

I will explain.

At its core, transparency is about clarity and openness. A commissioner dedicated to oversight of modern treaty implementation would make sure that indigenous partners, Parliament and all people in Canada have access to essential information regarding modern treaties. This is not for us to point fingers at one another, but to point us toward a better future for all treaty partners.

The proposed legislation before us today includes the same statutory access to power as granted to the Auditor General. This is the gold standard for access to information. This would give the commissioner open access to the information they will need to do their job, including information that is necessary to fulfill their mandate and carry out their duties and functions. Giving the commissioner this level of access to information will make the role more transparent, credible and trusted. It will also go a long way to fostering an environment of trust and mutual respect with modern treaty partners.

Members can imagine a scenario where all people in Canada, and indigenous communities in particular, are actively informed about how Canada is implementing its treaty commitments. This visibility is crucial. It supports communities so that they can meaningfully participate in the process.

Accountability goes hand in hand with transparency. The commissioner would be responsible for providing oversight of government activities related to treaty implementation by reporting these findings to Parliament in the form of reviews and performance audits. Reporting measures increase accountability by tracking performance and making government modern treaty processes more visible.

Reporting also allows us to see where the government is excelling and, crucially, where we are coming up short. As an agent, the commissioner would have a direct reporting relationship to Parliament. Parliament can then hold the government accountable, helping turn the promises made in modern treaties from words on paper into living commitments that reflect our dedication to reconciliation.

In this context, the commissioner is not an expense. It is an investment in Canada, in trust, in accountability, in efficiency and in a more just and prosperous future for all Canadians. Strong accountability measures promote responsible government. They promote credibility and results-oriented action. Together, they translate to trust, and trust is what will enable us to build a future that is not bound by the failures of the past.

By prioritizing transparency and accountability, the commissioner would help to build a foundation of trust between the government and modern treaty partners. In fact, a strong foundation of trust has already been established in the codevelopment process for this legislation. The proposal for the commissioner was codeveloped with modern treaty partners from the ground up. As my colleagues have mentioned, more than 130 partners engaged on this proposed legislation. This proactive engagement and collaboration not only demonstrates respect but makes sure that government action is reflective of community priorities.

When this legislation passes, we will continue to work hand in hand with modern treaty partners to support the success of the commissioner. The trust we have built throughout this process will serve as a strong foundation for the future. By facilitating regular consultations with modern treaty partners, the commissioner can make sure their voices are not just heard but actively integrated into the decision-making process.

This partnership approach means that the perspectives of modern treaty partners would be captured in the work of the commissioner and that their stories and experiences with federal implementation would be shared with all of us as parliamentarians.

There is a long road ahead of us to live up to our commitments to modern treaty partners. It is clear to me that we cannot get there without building and nurturing a relationship based on transparency, accountability and trust. That is what makes this legislation so important. Oversight, accountability and transparency measures have upfront costs, but they are key to supporting effective implementation, the kind that reduces long-term risks and prevents disputes and litigation over the medium and long run.

A commissioner for modern treaty implementation would promote transparency with access to information. They would hold the government accountable to Parliament and indigenous partners by conducting investigations and publishing reports. They would also play a vital role in fostering trust with modern treaty partners through engagement, so that our commitments to indigenous peoples are honoured with integrity. I would ask the House to pass the bill without delay.

Meegwetch. Qujannamiik. Marsi.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the hon. member's speech, she said, at one point, that the commissioner for modern treaty implementation would provide a critical eye and help hold the government to account. First, I believe, in Parliament, it is the opposition's job to hold the government to account.

Second, if the government does not even respond to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's critical eye, why would Canadians believe it would respond to the commissioner's critical eye?

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed the opposition's role to ensure that the government is held accountable, but these agents of Parliament actually help all parliamentarians fulfill their roles. They help the government. They help the opposition. They help us find non-partisan ways of sharing information within government. They hold governments across mandates to account and provide us with the kind of institutional knowledge we should have as parliamentarians on the biggest issues of our day. When it comes to looking at our budgets, when it comes to implementing modern treaties or when it comes to considering privacy and information, that is what our commissioners are for.

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

Mr. Speaker, five years ago, we learned about the shocking death of Joyce Echaquan, a 37-year-old wife and mother of seven. Five years have passed since she filmed and broadcast her experience with racism in a deeply tragic, but also infuriating, form. We remember her and what she went through. We stand with the Atikamekw nation and indigenous peoples in the fight against racism in all its forms, including within our institutions, as evidenced by so many personal accounts from first nations people.

Bill C‑10 creates the position of commissioner. It is a small step in the right direction, but should this position not be accompanied by the ability to make binding recommendations?

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my concerns about many of the instances across our past in which Canada has fallen short in terms of the safety, rights and protections that are owed to indigenous peoples. It is one of the reasons our government has prioritized reconciliation and the journey that this is over the course of years and decades.

I thank the member for his comment that the legislation is a step in the right direction. I think it adds to work that continues to be done on UNDRIP, as well as work that continues to be done around indigenous languages and culture, indigenous health and education, infrastructure and economic opportunity. These are all areas that we need to continue to build on our path.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her excellent speech and her commitment to seeing the legislation supported and passed.

I am a little distressed by what I heard from some of my Conservative friends, who have called the bill a distraction. Perhaps they do not realize that this has been called for over many years, really going back to the beginning of modern treaty nations, and that this is codeveloped legislation.

Could my colleague comment on whether she sees the bill as a distraction or whether she sees it as a key to economic development and a link to some of our other major pieces of legislation?

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly agree that the legislation is fundamental to prosperity for all Canadians. We need to have stability. We need to have predictability. We need to understand the treaties that underpin the relationship we have with indigenous peoples. When we have that transparency, when we have that predictability, it actually lets us all move forward toward greater prosperity and a stronger economy.

I think about the work we are doing at the moment around building major projects and building affordable homes across Canada. These pieces do not just touch indigenous communities; they have indigenous communities as a central part of the work that we need to do together. Treaty implementation is a fundamental part of that, and we need to continue to prioritize it.

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, kwe kwe, ullukkut, taanishi.

I acknowledge that we are gathered today on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people, whose presence here reaches back to time immemorial.

I also acknowledge that I represent the riding of Guelph, which is located on the traditional territory of the Attiwonderonk and Haudenosaunee peoples and that the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation are signatories to Treaty No. 3, where this territory is situated.

Today, I am honoured to rise to speak in support of Bill C‑10, which seeks to establish a commissioner for modern treaty implementation. The commissioner for modern treaty implementation act gives us an opportunity to strengthen our ties, propose solutions to affirm rights and improve the quality of life for modern treaty partners. It is also vital to upholding Canada's commitments to indigenous peoples by implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Our country is taking steps to fully embrace true nation-to-nation, Inuit-to-Crown and government-to-government relationships based on the recognition of indigenous rights, respect, co‑operation and partnership, as well as the fulfillment of our promises and commitments.

Modern treaties are agreements that form part of Canada's constitutional framework. They represent a distinct expression of reconciliation. The 27 modern treaties between the Crown and indigenous peoples cover more than 40% of Canada's land mass. The Supreme Court of Canada has stated on many occasions that modern treaties are essential to reconciliation between indigenous peoples and the Crown. Modern treaties define specific indigenous rights as legally distinct rights, and they have been painstakingly negotiated and agreed to by Canada and indigenous peoples.

Modern treaties are, therefore, a unique and intersectional element of the distinctions-based approach, which includes first nations, Inuit and Métis, as recognized in Canada's collaborative modern treaty implementation policy and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act action plan.

Upholding the honour of the Crown by quickly and effectively implementing modern treaties is an ongoing process, one that can and should be supported and advanced by the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act and our action plan. As many members know, UNDRIP is one of the elements that guides our work, particularly since the act was passed in 2021. We have worked with indigenous partners to respect and uphold indigenous rights, advance indigenous visions of self-determination and put UNDRIP into action. Together, we are entering a new era of indigenous relations and building genuine nation-to-nation, Inuit-to-Crown, and government-to-government relationships.

Pursuant to article 37 of UNDRIP, it is imperative that the Government of Canada and indigenous peoples work together to co-develop legislative and policy processes, tools, and mechanisms to ensure that modern treaties are recognized, observed and enforced, or in other words, implemented.

The announcement of Canada's collaborative modern treaty implementation policy in February 2023 marked an important milestone in implementing the declaration. The policy was developed in accordance with the declaration and set out a commitment to continue working on shared priorities, including the establishment of the intergovernmental leaders' forum, and to co-develop an independent oversight mechanism, namely the commissioner for modern treaty implementation.

Indigenous modern treaty partners have been calling for a mechanism like this for over 20 years to hold the federal government accountable for fulfilling its modern treaty obligations. The establishment of an oversight mechanism was also included in the UNDRIP action plan. The commissioner is directly linked to the ninth item in the list of indigenous modern treaty partners' priorities in the UNDRIP action plan, which states that one of the key priorities is to “[c]o-develop recommendations to establish a credible, effective, sustainable and independent Modern Treaty oversight mechanism to hold the federal government accountable to Parliament by September 2023”.

This is exactly what we are proposing. The commissioner is a response to these calls and an indicator of the government's progress in implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The commissioner would be an impartial agent of Parliament tasked with ensuring that the government is held accountable for the commitments made in modern treaties. Our promise became a reality thanks to the successful co-creation of the commissioner for modern treaty implementation. Today, we have an opportunity to keep this momentum going and embody the spirit of UNDRIP and our action plan by enshrining the commissioner into law.

If passed, this bill would significantly contribute to guaranteeing that the Government of Canada complies with article 37 of UNDRIP, as well as with its commitments and responsibilities under modern treaties. In accordance with section 5 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, this bill was developed in partnership with indigenous peoples in order to ensure that it is consistent with UNDRIP.

Meeting the Government of Canada's legal obligations to indigenous modern treaty partners and working together to renew relationships are critical to addressing some of the persistent and systemic injustices faced by indigenous peoples in Canada. The work of the commissioner for modern treaty implementation will drive a significant shift in the implementation landscape, ensuring that Canada is held accountable for its modern treaty obligations, objectives and relationships. These efforts align with UNDRIP.

By ensuring that the Government of Canada is accountable for its modern treaty commitments, the commissioner will enable modern treaty partners to unlock the full potential of these agreements as drivers of economic, social and cultural growth. This will create the kind of strong relationships with modern treaty partners that we all need in order to advance shared priorities.

This bill can help indigenous peoples achieve their goals and aspirations by fulfilling Canada's promise to support their rights, in accordance with the UN declaration. We all know that there is still much work to be done to fulfill our commitments. Passing this bill will help to ensure that this happens and that our priorities reflect the realities and current needs of indigenous peoples.

The Government of Canada will continue to work as a partner to promote the prosperity and well-being of indigenous communities, advance reconciliation, and renew our relationships. This bill will greatly contribute to strengthening relations between Canada and indigenous modern treaty partners. This bill will help us continue to build a strong future for indigenous peoples across the country.

As I have pointed out, the jointly drafted bill is consistent with a solid cornerstone of our commitments, and that cornerstone is the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is in this spirit that I invite hon. members here today to vote in favour of this bill. We owe it to all indigenous modern treaty partners, who are counting on us to fulfill our commitments and promises.

Meegwetch. Qujannamiik. Marsi.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is really fascinating to hear the revisionist history from members across the way. It is very clear what the record of the Conservative Party is: We signed five modern treaties in a six-year period. I am sure it is quite embarrassing for them that they have been in government for 10 years and have been unable to get a single one completed.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

That is not true.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is true. The member for Winnipeg North is leading this revisionist history, but those are the facts. One of them is in my constituency, with the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation.

Why do the Liberals prioritize a list of cycled-through ministers on this file? Some of them have failed upward. Others have left in disgrace. Meanwhile, nothing has been done on this file. Why is the Liberals' only solution to getting anything done that they need to add another bureaucracy? That is a typical Liberal tradition. Why can they not just get the job done and get the treaties signed?

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the language being used in this context, frankly, is offensive.

What we are trying to do is show transparency and accountability on treaty obligations. It is long overdue. Indigenous partners have been asking for this for 20 years. The consultations have been extensive. We are going to meet our responsibilities to the United Nations and to all our treaty partners.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, with whom I have the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. I congratulate her on her speech.

I would like to raise an important question. Naturally, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C‑10, whose implementation is crucial. That said, Liberal MP Robert Falcon Ouellette expressed some concerns about Bill C‑5, which was passed last spring. He called it “a dangerous step backward”. He also said, “For indigenous peoples, this bill is not a step forward. It is a modern version of the Indian Act.” He opposes that.

What can a commissioner with no power to enforce compliance do against a government that passes a law violating the basic rights of indigenous peoples, under a gag order, and with support from the Conservatives? It is not an easy question, but I am putting it out there.

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we enshrined in Bill C‑5 respect for the rights of indigenous peoples and extensive consultations with first nations, who are the rights holders in these areas.

The creation of this agent of Parliament position, which we are proposing today, also includes a review by indigenous peoples after five years and after seven years. This would help ensure that indigenous peoples are satisfied with the commissioner and with our transparency.

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

Mr. Speaker, the temptation is to challenge the Conservatives when they say, “zero”. I suggest that the Whitecap Dakota Nation is one they might want to do a little research on, not to mention things such as the Manitoba Métis Federation, which, technically, is signed off. They can talk to President Chartrand, and I am sure he would be more than happy to give a full update on it. There are others, as well, where consultations with indigenous leadership in terms of reserves and other things need to be approved before it can be brought in.

The essence of what we should be talking about here is the fact that we have indigenous community leaders from coast to coast to coast who recognize the value of Bill C-10 and want it to be passed. It is only the Conservative Party in Parliament that seems to not value Bill C-10.

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague's clarification.

Let me be clear: The commissioner could do reviews, audits and briefings to see how government programs are working and share what they find with ministers, indigenous partners and Parliament, including members opposite. Earlier in this conversation, one of the members opposite said that we could do this in question period. How many questions have we had in this session of Parliament on our obligations to our treaty partners? Any audit in any government would have a follow-up like this to make sure that the organization was meeting its audit findings.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the member of Parliament for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge and as a proud Métis Canadian, one who wants to see first nations, Métis and all Canadians thrive and prosper. The opposite has in fact happened under 10 years of Liberal government. Crime is up, the cost of living is up, food bank usage is up, and hopelessness is up. The economy is down, opportunities are down, and employment is down. The malaise that is felt in Canada from the Pacific to the Atlantic and Arctic oceans is felt by all communities. It has been experienced among indigenous and non-indigenous people alike.

Bill C-10 is the latest example of what the government does best: announce, reannounce, repackage and then do nothing. It proposes a new bureaucracy, a commissioner for modern treaty implementation. This is something that sounds nice and reads nicely in a press release, but when we open the box, we see nothing. We see no real powers, no real accountability and no tangible outcomes, just more process and delay.

Canadians, indigenous and non-indigenous alike, are right to be frustrated. The government has had 10 years to act but has delivered zero new modern treaties. That is a fact.

In contrast, the Conservative government under former prime minister Stephen Harper produced five modern treaties that were signed in six years. Therefore, I ask what exactly the commissioner is supposed to do that has not already been done or that should not already be happening. Would the commissioner build new homes? Would the commissioner provide clean drinking water? Would the commissioner hire police officers or ensure that indigenous policing is treated as the essential service it is? No, the commissioner would not, because they would have no power. The mandate would be to strengthen relationships and uphold the honour of the Crown, but the commissioner could not compel action, enforce treaties or even table reports to Parliament without waiting for the minister's permission. In fact, Parliament itself could not direct what they should review or audit. Who would this office report to? It would be the very people it is meant to oversee. This is not oversight; it is a public relations exercise.

Let us be honest about what is really happening. The government knows that it has failed indigenous people again. It knows the Auditor General has issued dozens of reports, not just one or two, but over 14 just since 2015, detailing how the government has been failing indigenous, Métis and Inuit peoples in everything from housing to clean water and treaty implementation. What has the government done with these reports? It has ignored them. Now indigenous peoples, many of them rightly frustrated, are calling for more oversight, not because they believe that Ottawa will suddenly fix things but because government has refused to deliver on its own obligations. I do not blame indigenous leaders for their frustration. I do not blame them for trying every option. I do blame the Liberal government. Instead of fixing the real problem, which is that its own departments are not doing their jobs, it decided to create another layer of bureaucracy to give the illusion of progress.

We already have systems in place: the courts, the Auditor General, parliamentary committees, deputy ministers, performance frameworks, oversight committees, secretariats and internal audits. The government does not need another reminder that it is failing. It needs to start doing its job. The Auditor General has already laid out how to fix this, going back two decades. In 2005, there was a report on the treaty land entitlement obligations. In 2006, there was a report on the B.C. treaty process. In 2013, there was an audit on modern treaty implementation. In 2016, there was a report on the Labrador and Inuit Land Claims Agreement.

The Liberal government has had a map, but instead of following it, they got lost in their own maze of offices, titles and press conferences. While they were doing that, the communities were suffering, treaty rights were not being honoured, fiscal transfers were delayed, infrastructure was crumbling, the police were underfunded and housing was inadequate. Why do they think one more office will suddenly change anything? What might actually change something is accountability. This is what we should be asking: Who has been fired for all these failures? Who has been demoted? Which departments have been reorganized? What consequences have been imposed on those who have failed to implement the treaties that have already been signed? None. Zero.

As my colleague, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, himself a former treaty negotiator, said, why would anyone believe a powerless commissioner will get results when years of direct negotiation with the government haven't? He is right. The root is not oversight. The issue is a government that refuses to be accountable, that prefers symbolic gestures over real results. Let us remember what these treaties mean. Modern treaties are nation-to-nation agreements. They are not symbolic. They are legally binding. Indigenous governments negotiated hard for them. They traded undefined rights and titles for legal certainty under the laws of Canada. This is paramountcy. They came to the table in good faith. It is Canada that has not been holding up its end of the bargain.

Now, the Liberals are proposing a commissioner whose job would be to watch the government break its own promises politely. This is not reconciliation; this is theatre. Under the current government, and now under the new Prime Minister, we have seen more bureaucracy than ever: a defence investment agency duplicating what the DND already does; a $13-billion housing bureaucracy while no homes are built; and now this, a modern treaty commissioner with no teeth.

This is all for what? The Parliamentary Budget Officer just called this government's spending unsustainable. Canada now spends more on interest payments than it does on health care. Our economy is the slowest-growing in the G7, with the highest unemployment. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister, who took office in March, has not even tabled a budget in seven months. Two-thirds of the fiscal year is already gone and we have no budget, but somehow they are going to find money for another office, another round of talking points and another layer of bureaucracy that accomplishes nothing.

Canadians are tired of it; indigenous peoples are tired of it, and Conservatives are tired of it. We do not need a commissioner to tell us the government is failing; we already know that. We do not need another office to report on reports that are already gathering dust on bureaucratic shelves, and we certainly do not need a Prime Minister who refuses to lead.

Here is what we do need: We need the department to do its job; we need ministers who are accountable; we need indigenous peoples to be respected as equal partners, not clients of the state; and we need to uphold the honour of the Crown by fulfilling the promises we have made, not creating new positions to tell us we did not.

Reconciliation is not measured in how many offices we open in Ottawa; it is measured in homes built, water cleaned, treaties honoured, safety delivered and prosperity shared. Let us stop the charade. Let us scrap this hollow bill and get back to doing the hard work of government. Common-sense Conservatives will continue to stand with indigenous Canadians, with treaty partners and with all Canadians, believing in results, not reports; in leadership, not lip service; and in a government that does its job instead of just expanding itself.

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

Mr. Speaker, as we start to wind down the debate today, it has become apparently clear and somewhat sad that the Conservative Party has taken the position to vote against Bill C-10. This is legislation that puts into place an independent agent of Parliament that will be a strong voice in dealing with modern treaties. The Conservatives, for political and partisan reasons, have decided that only they believe this is a bad idea. We have indigenous leaders from coast to coast to coast who want to see the legislation pass. We have every other political entity inside Parliament wanting to see legislation of this nature, but the Conservatives have made their decision: They do not like the legislation.

Does the member feel any guilt at all in terms of rejecting what indigenous leaders across Canada want to see made into law?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think indigenous leaders are responding to the lack of action and respect regarding them and treaties. That is what they are responding to. They are grasping at straws, asking, “Let us do something.” Why? It is because the Liberals are not doing their job. What is the Liberals' solution here again? It is to build another bureaucracy to do something and to report not to Parliament but to the minister. That is not accountability; that is just another way to give plum jobs to their friends.

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

Mr. Speaker, I salute my colleague, with whom I served for a long time on the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

When the Conservatives criticize and say that this is nothing but red tape, we have reason to be concerned.

The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of the bill. However, we see that it does not provide for the power to enforce compliance. It kind of reminds me of the Commissioner of Official Languages, as I said earlier, whose office was established over 50 years ago in 1970. Since then, French has been in decline and the assimilation rate of francophones has been going up. Year after year, the commissioner has expressed concern and criticized the government, but the government is not doing any better. It seems like things are only getting worse.

If a commissioner position is established, does my colleague agree that the incumbent should at least have the authority to compel the government to comply with the early treaties?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the Bloc Québécois. We served together on the committee.

I truly believe that we do not need this position. It is a new position created to produce reports like the ones already being produced by the Auditor General and the courts. We do not need yet another thing that will make everything more complicated and slow the processes down even more.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was nice to hear the thoughts of my colleague from Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge regarding Bill C-10. This bill would establish an independent commissioner and office. The Conservatives support modern treaties, but our concern is that the proposed legislation to establish an independent commissioner and office would add another layer of bureaucracy and cost to the government.

Does the member's opposition to Bill C-10 reflect the unwillingness to have accountability and/or oversight?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are not at all in opposition to accountability. We are for accountability, oversight and respecting treaty rights. We just have not seen this. We are concerned about another level of bureaucracy slowing things down. As I mentioned earlier in my speech, the one thing the Liberals are great at is gumming things up with red tape.

We are feeling it with projects. On the topic of resource projects, many first nations communities need resource projects, and what are the Liberals doing? They are strangling the prosperity of first nations. That is something the Liberals could address that would make a difference.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, this evening I would like to share some thoughts on something that has been a lifelong passion for me, and that is ensuring the implementation of treaty rights and inherent rights in Canada.

In fact, besides studying treaties in law school and being a professor of aboriginal and treaty rights at Cape Breton University, I was honoured to be given the opportunity to be the first-ever treaty education lead for the province of Nova Scotia. While doing that job, I was honoured and privileged to be able to do some work with some of the treaty commissions that are already set up in certain provinces across Canada. We have the Office of the Treaty Commissioner in Saskatchewan. We have the Treaty Relations Commission of Manitoba. We have the B.C. Treaty Commission. I had the chance to meet with all of them and hear about the important work and the successes they are having across this country.

In fact, last week, or two weeks ago, I was in Treaty 4 territory in Manitoba, where treaty commissioner Loretta Ross told me that one of the best things the treaty commissioners were able to do there was to ensure treaty education was offered in all schools across Manitoba. Largely championed by Premier Wab Kinew, we have been able to see treaty education become mandatory in the province of Manitoba.

These treaty commissioners are doing some amazing work. I would invite the Conservatives who have been saying they are not going to support this legislation to reach out to them and hear about that important work in advancing reconciliation through building trust, through ensuring collaboration as treaty partners and through educating the public on the importance of sharing that we are all treaty people in this country.

The overall purpose and objective of this important piece of legislation is to ensure oversight and accountability to ensure the treaties we have signed are implemented. There are more than 27 modern treaties in this country, covering more than 40% of the land mass across this country.

Indeed, what we have heard from stakeholders and leaders is quite simply that we need to implement these treaties we have signed and made promises on. All we are asking, and they are asking, in the most simplest of terms is that we honour and obey, and if we make a promise we keep it. I think if we asked any indigenous nation across this great country what is important to them, they would ask us to honour the treaties, implement the treaties and be treaty partners.

I am troubled by what I am hearing from the Conservatives and the narrative that we are creating some sort of bureaucracy and that it would cost too much money to implement what we have signed on to in the 27 modern-day treaties. They talk about bureaucracy and they talk about money, but what they are not going to talk about is that when they go home tonight to their children, they are going to quite simply tell them that if they make a promise, they should keep that promise. That is what we are talking about.

This is not a surprise to me. I am the son of one of the original drafters of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, who went to the United Nations for decades. When they finally got a declaration that all nations could sign on to, Canada, led by Stephen Harper then, rejected it and said, no, we would not vote for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Thankfully, as a Liberal, as a member of Parliament for my riding, I was able to help ensure that the Liberal government said it believed that first nations people should live without racism and was going to ensure that these rights were implemented. That is why we passed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. However, when it came time for the Conservatives to decide whether they would support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, they once again voted no.

Twice last year, I got up in the House of Commons and asked for unanimous consent to give first nations clean water legislation, protecting their source waters. Twice I got up here. Twice I heard nays from the Conservatives. Twice I was shouted down and not even allowed to get the words out of my mouth on the protecting first nations clean water legislation. It would appear the Conservatives are showing their true colours again in delaying, denying and obstructing any legislation that benefits indigenous people.

Currently in my riding, there are land protectors in the Cape Breton Highlands who are protesting the decimation of the moose population and moose habitat. I went to see them, and while this matter is primarily one of provincial jurisdiction, what was required was a treaty partner that would show empathy, that would create education and awareness, that would look toward collaboration to resolve this. However, the Conservatives decided and believed that fines and jail were more appropriate.

I am proud to stand on this side of the House, which believes in taking steps toward reconciliation and treaty implementation and believes in education, empathy and collaboration.

I have heard from other members of the House that they want to see this legislation pass. They have said that we need to move forward, and not only on advancing reconciliation. Last week, we celebrated the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, but I have not heard much from the Conservatives on what we need to do to implement and advance them.

In this House, I have a heard a number of times that, while the Conservatives support modern-day treaties and indigenous reconciliation, they are going to vote no on this legislation. I ask the Conservatives quite simply, in the few minutes I have here, to get on board, stop delaying this important legislation and allow us to move forward with unanimous consent.

Over the years, we have seen that the Conservatives are intent on delaying, denying and obstructing indigenous legislation. I am asking them tonight, the week after the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, to stand with us to implement modern-day treaties and support this legislation.

The House resumed from October 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act respecting the Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to be blunt. The relationship between the Crown and indigenous peoples is not built on fancy titles or shiny new offices. It is built on honour and keeping our word, and the Liberal government has a real problem with that.

Bill C-10 is just another level of bureaucracy that is not needed. We do not need another office in Ottawa to tell us again that the government is not doing what it promised to do. We do not need a commissioner to point out failure. We can see that from here. We can see that in our communities all across our country.

In my riding of Cariboo—Prince George, indigenous leaders are living this each and every day. Just this week, Chief Willie Sellars and the Williams Lake First Nation council were in Ottawa. They did not come here looking for a handout. They came looking for partnership, especially on the reconstruction and redevelopment of the St. Joseph's Mission, a residential school in my hometown. They want real action, not more red tape, and who can blame them? In fact, when they asked to meet and discuss their plans, it was the Conservative Party that stepped up and said yes immediately. The shadow minister for indigenous services, the member for Edmonton Northwest, worked diligently to accommodate them, listen to them and make sure they had everything they needed.

Reconciliation has to be about more than words; it has to be a partnership. What I have seen in the last 10 years is the leadership on the other side standing, dabbing a fake tear, putting their hand on their heart and saying they really care, but what we have seen under the guise of reconciliation is that they have pitted first nation against first nation and first nation against non-first nation.

When Chief Willie and the council from Williams Lake First Nation asked to meet with our leader, the member for Battle River—Crowfoot stepped up immediately. He changed his schedule, took the time to listen, asked questions and worked to understand the path forward. That is what a real leader does. That is how we build trust. That is how we reconcile differences: leadership to leadership, not an agent of the government to leadership of first nations.

When they asked to meet with the Liberals, the government, the people with the ability to get things done, it truly was like pulling teeth. I know there are others on the other side, one of whom I am looking at right now at the centre of the Liberal caucus, who stand and say, as he does every day, that they have done this and that, but the reality is that the experience our leaders felt this week was less than desirable. Maybe if the Liberals spent less time creating new bureaucracies and more time actually listening, they would be in a better position to move our country forward on a whole host of issues.

I want to thank our shadow minister for Crown-indigenous relations, the hon. member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, who, like the member for Edmonton Northwest and the member for Battle River—Crowfoot, stepped up, changed his schedule and took the time to listen.

Communities like Lheidli T'enneh, Nazko, Lhtako, McLeod Lake, Cheslatta and Williams Lake First Nation are working hard. They are building economies, creating jobs and planning for the future, not just for their community but for our regions. However, the federal government keeps tripping over its own departments. It picks winners over losers. As I said earlier, it pits first nation against first nation. It has endless delays, points fingers and makes promises with no follow-through. However, instead of fixing anything, the Liberals want yet another office on Wellington Street to tell us what the government is not doing.

We do not need more bureaucrats. We need the ones who have the jobs to do their jobs. What is happening right now in Williams Lake and around the province is unacceptable, full stop. For decades, families, ranchers and long-time landowners have been living in limbo because of unresolved land claims. People deserve clarity, they deserve honesty and they deserve a seat at the table. Instead, they are getting brushed off while decisions that directly affect their livelihoods are made behind closed doors.

Indigenous land claims are serious matters historically, legally and morally, and no one disputes that, but when governments mishandle them, when they communicate poorly and when they ignore the people whose homes, businesses and generational lands are in the middle of it, they create fear and distrust. That is exactly what is going on with the B.C. government right now in my province.

What we are seeing play out across British Columbia right now should concern every single one of us. The latest court rulings, including the Cowichan decision that threw long-established land titles in the city of Richmond into doubt, have sent a shockwave through communities and should send a shockwave across our nation. Families that worked their whole lives to build something are waking up wondering if the land they bought in good faith is still truly theirs.

Why are we at this point? It is because successive governments have abdicated their duties. Ministers of the Crown have passed on their duties and responsibilities and abdicated them to their agents. The sad truth is that people are asking these questions because governments at every level have failed to bring clarity, failed to lead and failed to protect the people caught in the middle.

Let us be clear. Indigenous rights and title matter. They must be respected, but respecting indigenous rights and treating landowners fairly are not mutually exclusive. The problem is governments that refuse to do the hard work. The governments that need to resolve these issues before they explode into uncertainty and anxiety for everyone are failing. Instead of stepping up, the province is dodging responsibility. The federal government is talking about creating new bureaucracies, with more layers, more delays and more confusion.

British Columbians need leadership, not another game of pass the buck. It is time for Ottawa and Victoria to get their act together, sit everyone down at the same table and finally build a process that delivers justice, certainty and stability for all. We have ministers of the Crown. Can they not meet with these first nation leaders and come up with a solution that is acceptable to all? Rather than stepping up and taking responsibility, the province is shifting the burden onto everyone else.

There are landowners in the Chilcotin who have waited 10 years to find out whether their farms, ranches and guide and outfitting businesses are worth anything. The province is shifting the burden onto everyone else, and the federal government, instead of bringing leadership, clarity and support, is floating the idea of yet another bureaucracy. It is another layer, another office and another department. It is another way for the Liberals to say this is not their problem while pretending they are solving something. It is another way for them to have plausible deniability.

We all know what this really means: more delays, more red tape, more confusion and more people left in the dark. Ranchers in Chilcotin are not asking for anything unreasonable. They are asking for transparency, for respect and to be heard before decisions are made, not after. Landowners are not the enemy and indigenous communities are not the enemy.

The real problem is governments that refuse to communicate and refuse to lead. This does not have to be a fight. These issues can be resolved through real partnership. That means the province doing the job it is responsible for. It means the federal government and the ministers making sure that Canadians are not caught in the crossfire. It means both levels of government recognizing that their decisions have real consequences: Families wonder if their land will still be theirs, businesses are unsure if they should invest or expand and communities are left uncertain about their future.

Passing the buck is not leadership. Creating new bureaucracies is not leadership. Ignoring the people directly impacted is not leadership. The people of Canada deserve better.

Our governments, provincial and federal, need to stop sidestepping responsibility, start doing the hard work and bring all parties together, with no more delays, no more excuses and no more hiding behind the process. They need to fix this. We do not need another level of red tape or another commissioner, who will likely be a friend of the Liberal Party and get a high-paying job. We do not need that. They need to fix this. They need to listen to the people who are affected and do the right thing.

I stand here today embarrassed. I was proud of the leadership of the first nations from my hometown who came to this town to present their vision for their community and our region. What I have seen is them being snubbed by the Liberal Party time and again, being passed down and being told, “I want to finish my coffee before I meet with them.” Yes, that is a direct quote; that was said to me.

I work through these issues in a non-partisan way whenever I can in my community. I am proud to bring people to our region. I will offer this. We do not need another level of bureaucracy and we do not need more red tape. We need the people at the heads of these governments to sit down and do their jobs right now.

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

Madam Speaker, let me pick up on the word “embarrassed”. If the member is embarrassed, he should be embarrassed that the Conservative Party wants to do economic projects without any formal consent from indigenous communities.

He stands up and talks about reconciliation. He should listen to the questions the leader of the Conservative Party has put across related to pipelines.

How can the member possibly say that ignoring the interests of indigenous people in B.C. is a form of reconciliation? He has the audacity to say that we are not listening. Seriously, he should think about the issue.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will take no lessons from the hon. colleague across the way.

For nine years, he stood behind a leader who dismissed the first female indigenous attorney general and absolutely ran her right out of his government. When first nations protesters came to one of his events, the previous prime minister yelled at them and said, “Thank you for your donation.” At every turn, he pitted first nation against first nation and first nation against non-first nation, and he hid behind reconciliation for all his misdeeds.

I will take no lessons from that colleague.

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

Madam Speaker, what is going on right now is rather ironic. In fact, it is beyond irony. It is black comedy. Here we have a Liberal bill that we agree on, which talks about reconciliation with indigenous peoples and the need to consult them in advance. However, just yesterday, this same government announced an agreement to shove a pipeline down the throats of indigenous people in British Columbia that they do not want. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.

Does he not understand how resentful, if not completely alienated, all indigenous peoples in western Canada feel when they see that this government, which says that it wants to consult them before implementing international treaties, is announcing a pipeline and saying that it will consult them after the fact? In fact, it is clear that it will simply be shoved down their throats.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will go with the words of our colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley, who was the chief councillor for the Haisla Nation for six years and was a councillor for eight years. During that period, he was the treaty chairman and also led his community through massive economic projects, like the one with LNG Canada. He stewarded them through economic prosperity.

Obviously, there are first nation proponents and first nation opponents to these projects, but that is all the more reason we do not need an agent of the government to sit at the table. We need the ministers of the government to sit at the table and listen to the concerns so we can find a path forward for all of Canada.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I would like to ask the member about how important it is that this issue be a non-partisan issue, especially given that organizations like the Land Claims Agreements Coalition have been working hard for 20 years to make sure this bill is introduced, because it would, for example, honour UNDRIP and implement a portion of UNDRIP for indigenous peoples.

Taking a non-partisan approach to creating accountability will hold the government to account, no matter who the government is. That is why creating this commissioner position is important, and we should avoid taking partisan potshots at each other.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, here is my concern with having yet another layer of bureaucracy, which I am sure my colleague can appreciate. This building, this hall and parliaments all across our country are filled with studies and commissioner reports saying that government does not listen. If the government has ministers at the table speaking directly with leadership from all across our country, maybe they can come to some agreement on how we move forward.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak strongly against Bill C-10, the proposed modern treaty implementation act. Although the government frames this legislation as a step towards reconciliation and improved accountability, it is neither. Instead, it expands bureaucracy, repeats mechanisms that are already in place and diverts energy away from the real work in reaching agreements with the nations.

Conservatives believe in the importance of Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples. We believe deeply in honouring the treaties this country has signed, both historic and modern. Modern treaties represent decades of the negotiation, collaboration and sacrifice of first nations, Inuit and Métis partners. They define land rights. They established jurisdiction, and they provide a clear path towards local decision-making and economic certainty. These agreements matter, and they deserve to be implemented.

Bill C-10 does not advance that goal. In fact, it does the opposite. Since the 1970s, Canada has sought to move beyond numbered treaties and develop modern, comprehensive agreements that are grounded in partnership. Today, more than two dozen modern treaties are enforced across the country, from Nunavut to Yukon, Quebec and British Columbia, where I represent my riding.

These agreements form a critical foundation for reconciliation, economic development and indigenous self-government. They are supposed to be binding and enforceable, and they are supposed to hold the federal government accountable, but the government has consistently failed to meet its obligations under those agreements. This is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of record, and that record has been documented clearly, repeatedly and exhaustively by the Auditor General of Canada.

This brings me to the central flaw of the bill. Bill C-10 creates the position of a commissioner for modern treaty implementation, an office that would review, monitor, assess, evaluate and report on federal performance. Those are the words we have all seen before because they describe the existing mandate of the Auditor General. For nearly 20 years, the Auditor General has published report after report identifying federal failures in implementing modern treaties. These reports all say the same thing: There are chronic delays, unfulfilled commitments, inadequate coordination between departments and no meaningful consequences when obligations are ignored.

The oversight already exists. The findings exist. The recommendations exist. What does not exist is the government's willingness to act. One has to ask, where has accountability been? Who has faced the consequences for failing to uphold these treaties? I have yet to hear a single minister held responsible for years of missed deadlines and ignored commitments.

Instead of fixing the problems that have been highlighted by the Auditor General, the Liberals want to create a new office to highlight the same promises over and over again. This new commissioner comes with a price tag. It is not free. It comes with a price tag of $10.6 million over four years, money that could instead be used to actually implement treaty obligations, support indigenous governments' capacity or accelerate negotiations that have been solved for years. This is bureaucracy posing as progress, and Canadians are expected to cover the tab.

Yes, indigenous partners have expressed support for this bill because they want stronger oversight. They want something to actually be done, but accountability comes from implementation, not from another layer of review. Communities are calling for results, safer housing, reliable water and treaty commitments to be fulfilled. The only thing that will deliver that to them is a government that is willing to act on the oversight already in place, and the government has not done that.

To illustrate how redundant this office is, I will point out that the bill contains an entire section explaining that the commissioner must avoid duplication of work with the Auditor General and other oversight bodies that already exist. Even the legislation seems a little embarrassed by it. It states that the commissioner must “coordinate their activities” to prevent overlap. When a bill has to explicitly warn itself to not duplicate functions, it is clearly duplicating. That alone should tell the House everything it needs to know, but it gets worse.

The bill notes that the commissioner would not be a dispute resolution body. The commissioner would not be a performance auditor. The commissioner would get to decide their own priorities, including the number and frequency of reviews they would like to produce.

In other words, the office cannot solve failures, cannot enforce compliance and cannot even be compelled to work at the pace required to match the seriousness of the issues that are at hand. These issues are serious, not just in the province of B.C., where, in some places, they are exploding, but throughout Canada. Again, I ask what the office is supposed to do. The answer is nothing meaningful.

The problem is not a lack of oversight; the problem is a lack of action. The government has a long history of substituting announcements, offices and photo ops for actual implementation.

When faced with a problem, the Liberal instinct is always the same, to create a new bureaucracy and hope that symbolism distracts from inaction. Let us look at the record. Since 2015, despite promising a renewed nation-to-nation relationship, and despite promising to respect modern treaty partners, the government has negotiated zero new modern treaties. There has not been one in 10 years. There has been zero progress.

Meanwhile, under former prime minister Stephen Harper, Canada saw real results. Nine communities reached a final modern treaty agreement in six years. These were not symbolic gestures. They were fully negotiated agreements that required hard decisions, interdepartmental coordination and political will. Conservatives got things done, and the Liberals have not.

This context matters. A government that has failed to negotiate treaties and has failed to implement existing obligations now wants Parliament to believe that creating another office would miraculously fix the failures it has spent a decade ignoring. The claim is not credible. The Liberals argue that a commissioner would provide direction, but modern treaties do not need more direction; they need delivery.

Out of respect for our first nation partners, our neighbours, departments need to implement the agreements that have already been signed. Ministers need to enforce obligations already written in law. Commitments that have been sitting untouched for years need to be acted upon, not observed from afar by a new commissioner. Reconciliation is not achieved by expanding Ottawa's payroll. It is achieved when commitments are honoured.

Treaty partners have been patient. Some have been waiting for implementation milestones for decades. They deserve measurable progress, clear timelines and accountability, not more reports confirming what they already know, which is that the federal government has failed to meet its responsibilities.

Conservatives believe reconciliation must be practical and grounded in partnership, not in Ottawa-centric bureaucracy. We respect treaty rights. We respect the work, time and investment indigenous communities put into these agreements, and we believe that honouring that work requires implementation, not layers of duplication.

Let us be clear. If Bill C-10 passes, nothing will change. In four or five years, the Auditor General will still be issuing the same warnings, departments will still be missing deadlines, treaty partners will still be waiting and Canadians will still be asking where the money went. Oversight is not the issue; leadership is the issue. That is why Conservatives cannot support Bill C-10.

We will continue to advocate for transparent accountability. We will continue to push for the meaningful implementation of modern treaties. We will continue to insist that reconciliation requires action, not new offices in Ottawa.

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

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member can explain how it is that the Conservative Party respects treaty rights and is in favour of reconciliation when the leader of the Conservative Party is saying what he has been saying for the last week or more about what he believes the Conservative Party would do with respect to a pipeline. He does not believe that he has to consult and work with indigenous leaders, particularly in the province of British Columbia.

Looking at the bill itself, indigenous communities want to see an agent of Parliament. How does she reconcile that?

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, what is important about the bill is that it is not going to end with any results. It is a repeat of the bureaucratic layers that we already have. The Auditor General is already doing exactly what the Liberals plan to spend $4 million on.

We need to start actually doing the work. Our relationship with these communities, throughout Canada and B.C., is extremely important. We cannot waste time on bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for highlighting a concern that I think lots of Canadians have, and that is accountability measures and increasing bureaucracy.

The Liberals, over the last decade, have demonstrated that, when they increase bureaucrats, there is actually poorer service delivery. In this case, I really believe in what the member spoke about in her speech. There is a lack of accountability. It is not going to change by creating more bureaucracy. It is actually a leadership failure by the current Liberal government.

Could my hon. colleague comment on and re-emphasize her opinion on what this lack of accountability does under the current leadership of the Liberal government?

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, we do not need more bureaucracy, as the member mentioned. Relationships with first nations are extremely important, but when we set up more bureaucracy, it only makes things worse. There is more finger pointing and confusion. It sets communities against communities, and it sets us all up for bad faith and friction.

We need to help the relationships and work on the relationships between our communities, so that real progress can be made and real treaties can be made. In other words, we need to do the work.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I wonder what the member has to say to the over 130 indigenous groups that helped co-develop this bill in its original form, Bill C-77, of which Bill C-10 is a carbon copy. What does she say to them about the hard work they did to ensure that Bill C-10 could reach the stage that it is at?

Indigenous groups have been asking for the role of the commissioner to be created so they can see legal obligations finally implemented. As she correctly said in her statement, there is not enough implementation of legal treaties with first nations, and there needs to be a commissioner position to ensure that these obligations are being met.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is definitely an expert in this field. I want to tell her that I actually want work to happen. I want this to move forward.

As she knows, the more bureaucracy and the more money that is thrown into a repetitive process, the less real work is going to be done. We need these treaties to actually happen. When there are no treaties, there are only delays and broken promises. It breeds contempt—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I will just interrupt the hon. member as the French interpretation is not working.

It is working now. The hon. member may finish her comment.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I just want to say that I want it to really happen. Conservatives want this to really happen, and we feel that another layer of bureaucracy will not allow that.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to an issue that, perhaps paradoxically, touches on one of Canada's most important yet too often overlooked relationships: our relationship with indigenous peoples.

The riding I represent includes the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte. Like many members in this House, I can candidly say that when I was first elected to represent the area we share with Tyendinaga, I did not truly understand as much as I should have about the community. I lacked an understanding of its history, culture and heritage. I did not fully appreciate the role Joseph Brant played during the American Revolution, the alliance he and his people forged with the British or the promises made to the Mohawk people in recognition of their fierce and loyal support. I did not know the full story of their migration after the war, the lands they lost or how Brant led his people to what would become their home in Canada, and for one group in particular, to the shores of the Bay of Quinte.

I like to think that from talking, engaging and, most importantly, listening, some of my earlier misunderstandings have begun to fall away. With many conversations, and incredibly patient and strong local indigenous leaders, advocates and community members, including colleagues in this very House, I have begun to learn more about the rich and diverse history of indigenous peoples in Canada. Every year I look forward to the celebration of the Mohawk landing in Tyendinaga. I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank Chief Don Maracle, the council and the people of Tyendinaga for their kindness, guidance and patience. It is an ongoing learning journey, but it is one in which I hope to continue to make meaningful progress.

There is one more misconception that I, especially as a federal legislator, must set aside when it comes to understanding indigenous communities, which is their relationship with Canada and the Crown. The most effective way to begin to do that is by listening. This means listening to the concerns of the council, the chief, local business owners, builders, educators and anyone else who wishes to have their voice heard. Of course, listening is a very important skill when engaging with any group, whether it is business leaders, foreign dignitaries or members of this chamber.

However, the relationships between Canada and indigenous communities are too often steeped in sadness, violence, betrayal, deception and neglect. They are numerous, and, most importantly, each of them is distinct. Too often, we speak of the indigenous community as though it were a single, uniform entity. It is not. There are indigenous communities, each with their own histories, governance structures, cultures and needs. Even the word “communities” fails to truly capture the full diversity and complexity that exists. This misconception is, if not the core, then certainly a major contributor to the veil that has obscured the understanding of far too many policy-makers and decision-makers here in Ottawa.

That misunderstanding, unfortunately, extends to this very place. The simple truth is that since its inception, Ottawa, and indeed Canada, has too frequently been unable or perhaps unwilling to treat every first nation, Métis and Inuit community with the individual respect, understanding and reverence it deserves. My concern is that the creation of yet another centralized office in Ottawa risks adding only another layer of bureaucratic indifference when what we require is a streamlined, responsive process capable of negotiating, settling and addressing historical wrongs with the attention each community merits.

I quote:

Non-Aboriginal Canadians hear about the problems faced by Aboriginal communities, but they have almost no idea how those problems developed. There is little understanding of how the federal government contributed to that reality through residential schools and the policies and laws in place during their existence.

That is from “Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future: Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada”. While it speaks specifically to the horror of residential schools, that same issue can be applied to far too many interactions between the state and aboriginal communities at a larger scale. That is what we parliamentarians need to do. It is what we need to do better at.

The reason this office has garnered some support from stakeholders is that they feel it is needed because government is not doing its due diligence in listening, engaging, learning and advocating for the treaty rights of first nations. The only thing Bill C-10 would do is create another office to release reports that would be ignored, reiterating what we already know is happening: The government is not doing its job.

What is worse is that it may remove the onus from far too many parliamentarians to engage and listen to indigenous communities regarding treaty rights, because they will just wait for the report and let the government deal with it, especially those parliamentarians who do not share their borders with an indigenous community.

There is another glaring issue at hand here. The government has an aversion to properly funding these offices and allowing them to maintain independence if they do not toe the line. Our procurement ombudsman does not have enough money to do their job, which they openly stated. The government is firing the interim Parliamentary Budget Officer because he spoke out against the government. In fact, the advertisement for his replacement is already published in the Canada Gazette.

I support treaty rights because I respect the rule of law and I respect the courts. To me, this is a fundamental underpinning of being a Tory. In many ways, these are the same reasons that convinced Joseph Brant and the Mohawk to ally with the British those many years ago. I want to be a part not of a government but of a House, a legislature and a nation that removes bureaucratic barriers to reconciliation, not doing what I fear would be putting them up. Ultimately, when the state is involved, action is only limited by will.

To put on my partisan hat for just a moment, I want to highlight some of the actions the Harper government took when, and I stress when, political will was shown. In 2013, the Conservative government implemented a change that accelerated and improved the process for resolving specific claims, itself an extension of the 2007 specific claims action plan. Following that, in 2008, through legislation developed in tandem with the Assembly of First Nations, was the Specific Claims Tribunal. It also achieved a number of modern treaties, including with the Tłı̨chǫ, Déline, Maa-nulth and Tsawwassen. This was done without the addition of a commissioner for modern treaty implementation. Was it enough? No, but it was done.

I do not believe I will support the legislation, because I believe it signals a silent abandonment of what we should be doing more of in the House: bringing that too-ignored relationship between Canada and first nations into this place, properly funding departments and agencies, and removing the barriers to settlement so that not just indigenous Canadians but also non-indigenous Canadians can move on with their lives, together.

Right now, in the area that I represent, there is a settlement ongoing after years of negotiations. The government has not been forthcoming with either the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte or the Town of Deseronto about what the final steps will mean for each of them. This is unacceptable for what is supposed to be one of the most straightforward treaties in the country.

I sincerely hope that the ministers will work and, importantly, communicate with both communities as this long-standing process moves towards a conclusion. Above all, most importantly, I hope they will listen. If people in the House never listen, we will never learn and our ignorance will never drift away.

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

Madam Speaker, again, I want to pick up on the idea of listening.

I want to point out that this is a very serious issue, and the leader of the Conservative Party has been very clear, in terms of how he envisions things such as pipelines. He believes that there is no duty or responsibility to work with indigenous leaders when it comes to pipelines. The Conservatives try to give this false impression that they actually believe in reconciliation.

When it comes to the Conservative Party's self-serving political interests, Conservatives are prepared to forgo indigenous concerns. Could the member explain to people who are following this debate why the leader of the Conservative Party has taken the position that he has on the issue of the pipeline?

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are not here today to talk about Conservatives. We are not here to talk about politics. We are not here to talk about partisan issues, as one of my colleagues spoke of earlier in a question. We are here to talk about Bill C-10.

It was very clear in my speech that a large problem we have is a failure to keep indigenous conversations in this place, and that member's question alludes to exactly that. Oversight is not the issue; leadership is.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I find it the height of hypocrisy to hear the parliamentary secretary and the Liberals talk about their commitment to treaties and reconciliation when they are violating the treaties this very day.

In my riding of Parkland, the Parkland School Division has had to lay off 100 educational assistants and has had tens of millions of dollars in losses because the current Liberal government cut off Jordan's principle funding for at-risk and vulnerable indigenous students. It is not just in my riding; it is across this country. Yellowknife Catholic Schools had to lay off 200 members because of the Liberal government's cuts to indigenous education funding. Could my hon. colleague talk about how the Liberal government is currently failing indigenous people?

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Madam Speaker, the question of Jordan's principle is a conversation that has come up time and time again with trustees from my local area. The question is falling, seemingly, on deaf ears with the government. I have asked time and time again for some consultation, for communication and where we are moving forward.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am just as disgusted with the Liberal parliamentary secretary and agree about the hypocrisy of the Liberals' so-called mandate for reconciliation, which we know is not sincere. I wonder if the member agrees that because we have an important role in the Auditor General, which does make sure that there are audits going on with government operations, maybe we need the role of the commissioner to be able to call out such hypocrisy in this House.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more that hypocrisy is not welcome in the House, but we hear it time and time again.

This is not a true step toward reconciliation. We spoke earlier about $10.6 million over four years: bureaucracy posing as progress. What indigenous peoples are looking for is safer housing and reliable water, but Bill C-10 would not do any of that. It would be just another study and another study, when there are already recommendations in place that we need to fulfill. Let us just do and implement these things. We do not need another bureaucratic prism to do that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will talk about NDP hypocrisy on another day.

One thing I can say is that the legislation is substantial. It is something indigenous leaders have been calling for and assisting with the drafting of. Can the member tell the House again how the member reconciles being in favour of reconciliation with not supporting legislation of this nature?

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-10 clearly, with no doubt, would only add another voice that governments have been ignoring for years. The issue is not people's raising awareness; the issue is the government's ignoring them, and that would not change with Bill C-10.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, when we talk about treaties, we are not talking about paperwork; we are talking about promises, solemn commitments made between the Crown and indigenous people. They are commitments that define land, governance, rights and the very shape of our shared country, and the truth is that a promise is only as strong as the people responsible for keeping it. For decades, indigenous partners have asked for something that every Canadian understands: respect, fairness, and a government that keeps its word, not just speeches and photo-ops but real action.

Bill C-10, which would create a new commissioner for modern treaty implementation, is supposed to be that answer, but we cannot solve a problem of execution by creating more bureaucracy. Accountability does not come from a new office; it comes from leadership, responsibility and courage to deliver on commitments that already exist in law.

Before we talk about implementation, we need to be clear about what modern treaties actually are. A modern treaty is not symbolic; it is a legally binding agreement, a negotiated settlement that clarifies land ownership, resource rights, governance and jurisdiction. In many cases, it includes self-government provisions that give indigenous communities authority over education, health, culture and local services.

These agreements were meant to end decades, sometimes centuries, of litigation and uncertainty. They are not suggestions; they are federal law, so when Canada signs a treaty, the honour of the Crown is on the line, and that honour cannot be delegated to another office and cannot be outsourced or buried inside a new bureaucracy. It has to be lived out in real action.

Here is the heart of the issue. The problem is not that there is too little oversight; the problem is that there is too little action. There is no shortage of reports; there is a shortage of results. The Auditor General, time and time again, has already told Parliament exactly where the system is breaking down: late funding, inconsistent interpretation of agreements, poor coordination across departments, unclear accountability, and almost no consequences when obligations are ignored. There have been multiple audits over the years by the Auditor General of treaty-related obligations, and there are still delays, missed commitments, and indigenous governments being forced back to the table to fight for what was already agreed to.

Now the government has proposed a new commissioner, someone who would monitor, assess and report, but reports are not roofs, and they do not build homes, bring clean water, deliver policing or create economic opportunity. The new office would have no power to compel compliance or enforce obligations. It would have no direct accountability to Parliament. It could not direct departments, impose consequences or resolve disputes. It would be just more smoke and mirrors, because oversight without enforcement is a system built to observe failure, not to fix it.

Indigenous leaders have shown us what real partnership looks like. Chief Clarence Louie of the Osoyoos Indian Band captured it well when he said, “We're business people. Our goals are to build a strong future [and] to pursue the good life”.

That is the spirit we should be supporting: indigenous communities building their own future through hard work, collaboration and opportunity. A government that keeps its word and delivers on modern treaties does not create dependency; it creates the space for that success to flourish. Good things happen when everyone does their part: when indigenous governments lead, when local businesses invest and when Ottawa actually follows through on the commitment it has already signed.

We know that the agreements can be negotiated and implemented when the government is focused, disciplined and accountable. Modern treaties and self-government agreements are possible. They are not easy files; they require discipline, focus, trust and constant conversation with indigenous partners, but they can be delivered.

Let me remind the House what success looks like. Tsawwassen is located just an hour from my riding. The Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement, which happened under Prime Minister Harper, is one of the most significant modern treaties in our country's recent history, not because it made headlines but because it made progress. It came into effect in 2009, giving the Tsawwassen First Nation clear authority over its land, its resources and its economic future. It replaced uncertainty with clarity, and decades of stalled negotiations with a real and enforceable partnership.

However, what stands out about Tsawwassen is not just the treaty itself but what the community built with it. It used its rights, the way any government should: with discipline, vision and a plan for the next generation. We can see it in the development around Tsawwassen Mills and Tsawwassen Commons. We can see it in the jobs created, the businesses launched and the sense of momentum that did not depend on speeches and symbolism but on hard work and steady leadership.

Here is the real lesson: When the treaty is clear, when the federal government does its part, when the rules are respected by everyone at the table, indigenous communities do not just participate in the economy, they help drive it. The Tsawwassen treaty succeeded not because Ottawa created a new office; it succeeded because the agreement was honoured and because the Tsawwassen people turned opportunity into outcomes.

We love to take our grandkids out to the Tsawwassen Mills mall to wander around Cabela's checking out the displays. When it first opened, we threw a few gutter balls in the bowling alley at Uncle Buck's Fishbowl and Grill, and the kids loved it. It is a living example that when we keep our word, show up, follow through and respect the commitments we have already made, good things happen: stronger communities, stronger partnership and a stronger Canada.

More agreements like the Tsawwassen agreement will not come from a new office, a new commissioner or a new layer of bureaucracy. They will come from a government that respects the negotiating table, honours deadlines and holds itself accountable for results. They will come from ministers who show up, officials who execute their mandate and indigenous partners who share the future of their communities.

Conservatives believe in accountability. We believe in honouring the Crown. We believe in a strong nation-to-nation relationship grounded in trust. Yes, oversight matters, but real oversight comes from Parliament, from the Auditor General, from the treaty governance bodies and from the courts, not from yet another monitoring office.

Conservatives believe there is a better path forward, one rooted in accountability, partnership and respect. We would strengthen responsibility inside the ministries that already exist, setting clear expectations, forcing performance milestones and requiring regular reporting to Parliament, with real consequences when obligations are missed. We would use the tools already written into modern treaties, the dispute resolution clauses, the courts and the work of the Auditor General. Instead of creating more layers of bureaucracy, we would put responsibility back on ministers and departments, where it belongs.

If the commitment is delayed, Canadians deserve answers from the people who signed the agreement, not from another office with no power to enforce it. We would honour the sovereignty and self-determination of indigenous partners by making accountability something we build together, not something imposed by Ottawa. Above all, Conservatives are focused on results, because homes, infrastructure and opportunity are delivered by governments that do their job, not by more commissioners and more reports.

Indigenous governments have been clear: Yes, they want accountability, but more than that, they want progress. They want the federal government to deliver what it already agreed to. They want implementation that is timely, consistent and respectful. Bill C-10 would give us new reports but not new results. Canadians, indigenous and non-indigenous, expect more than that.

Reconciliation is not a new title, a new commissioner or a new office on Wellington Street; reconciliation is when a treaty is honoured, when communities see a real change and when the federal government does what it already promised to do. Let us choose the path of integrity and a future where treaties are not words on paper but living commitments, upheld with discipline and delivered with honour, measured in real progress on the ground. We do not need more bureaucracy; we need a government that does its job.

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C-10 is before us because of the strong leadership from indigenous people and the grassroots from indigenous community members, along with a co-operative government seeking through reconciliation to bring forward positive legislation. That is the driving force of what we are voting on, but the Conservatives continue to want to filibuster to prevent the legislation from passing. My question is why.

While the member is addressing that particular question, maybe she can also address the issue of how we can reconcile the Conservative Party's, and in particular the leader of the Conservative Party's, approach in dealing with the pipeline going through B.C., feeling that there is absolutely zero obligation to indigenous people or the Province of B.C.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, let us be honest. The question distracts us from the core problem. The government's answer to every failure is to stack another layer of paperwork on top of the last one. Bill C-10 would create just another monitoring office that would not be able to enforce a thing. There is more paper with the same problems.

The budget is full of new departments that will not solve a thing. It is time to get serious and ensure that departments that already exist actually follow through on their responsibilities.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, once again, we listened to the Liberal parliamentary secretary talk about how Conservatives are not honouring reconciliation in our treaties. Meanwhile, the Liberal government is attacking indigenous children who have autism, fetal alcohol syndrome and other vulnerabilities. It has cut funding for indigenous education that was mandated by the Supreme Court of Canada and the treaties.

I wonder if my hon. colleague could talk about the hypocrisy from the Liberals on indigenous funding.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, we Conservatives oppose the approach the government is taking. A new bureaucracy does not hold anyone to account; it shields ministers from responsibility. Instead of fixing delays, the government creates another office to talk about the delays. That is not progress, and it adds a whole lot more cost.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act respecting the Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise again in this chamber on behalf of the people of Vaughan—Woodbridge.

Today, we are debating Bill C-10, the commissioner for modern treaty implementation act. The bill would create a new officer of Parliament supported by a new federal office, with a mandate to review and audit how federal departments implement modern treaties. The commissioner would examine the performance of government institutions and present findings in Parliament. The stated goal is to improve how Canada lives up to its obligations under modern treaties. The bill is presented as a measure in the federal action plan to implement UNDRIP and respond to a long-standing frustration that Canada often signs agreements and then fails to deliver on them.

Those frustrations are very real. Conservatives recognize that. We support treaty rights and reconciliation. We support self-determination and self-government for first nations, Inuit and Métis. We do not question the sincerity of indigenous partners who see the bill as a way to hold Ottawa accountable. Our concern is that Bill C-10 answers a problem of implementation with more bureaucracy and less accountability. We need accountability in the government to actually meet our treaty obligations.

To understand why that matters, it is worth recalling where modern treaties come from and what they are meant to fix. Treaty rights in Canada go back to the earliest relationships between the Crown and indigenous nations, through the Royal Proclamation of 1763, the historic peace and friendship treaties, and the numbered treaties that cover much of western and northern Canada. Those treaties, however imperfectly honoured, are recognized and affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

In many parts of the country, indigenous title and rights were never resolved by historic treaties. That is why the Supreme Court's decision in 1973 was so important. The court recognized indigenous title in Canadian law and forced the federal government to move from denial to negotiation. That decision opened the modern treaty era and led to the first modern treaty, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement of 1975.

Since 1975, Canada has negotiated and signed 26 modern treaties with indigenous groups in Canada, 18 of which contain self-government provisions or associated self-government agreements. Canada has concluded modern treaties with indigenous peoples across the north and in parts of British Columbia and Quebec. These comprehensive land claim agreements define landownership, resource rights, financial compensation and governance authorities. They are constitutionally protected and legally enforceable.

The model has evolved over time. Before 2000, most modern treaties focused on land and resources, with separate or partial agreements for self-government. Since 2000, almost all modern treaties have included explicit self-government provisions. Whether a nation has a modern treaty, a self-government treaty or both, the obligations are legally binding on the Crown. For years, Parliament, indigenous leaders and experts have warned that Canada's record on implementation is inconsistent and often poor.

In 2008, the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples recommended the creation of an independent body, such as a modern treaty commission, to help monitor implementation. Modern treaty partners have repeatedly called for stronger and stronger oversight.

Conservatives take this history very seriously. Our record in government shows that modern treaties can be negotiated and implemented when Ottawa is focused on results. Under former prime minister Harper, five modern treaties were signed in six years. They included a first nation land claims and self-government agreement in 2006, a first nations final agreement in 2009, another first nations final agreement in 2009, the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation Governance Agreement in 2013 and the Déline Final Self-Government Agreement in 2015.

Under the Liberal government, we have seen many new offices, frameworks and big promises, but at the end of the day, it has negotiated zero modern treaties. This is the context in which we look at Bill C-10.

Parliament needs to ask hard questions. Would the bill fix an underlying problem, or would it give the illusion of action while the same departments continue with business as usual? We already have oversight tools. The Office of the Auditor General has repeatedly studied modern treaty implementation and related issues. Audits in the last decade have highlighted serious gaps in how obligations are tracked, coordinated and met. Those reports set out recommendations and named the departments that needed to act, yet here we are years later, hearing many of the same concerns from treaty partners.

The problem is not a lack of reports; the problem is that ministers and departments are not held to account when they fail to implement the very agreements they sign. In fact, the government has already created new federal offices and initiatives to work on land claim implementation issues: the modern treaty implementation office, the assessment of modern treaty implications office, the performance management framework, the modern treaty management environment, the deputy minister's oversight committee and the reconciliation secretariat. Despite that, progress on implementation remains slow.

No modern treaties have been established by the government. Indigenous governments spend too much time chasing basic compliance from federal partners. If these entities have not solved the problem inside the government, it then raises the question of why we should believe that a new external office will do so. Who has been fired for not delivering in the past? Many modern treaty partners originally proposed that a commissioner be housed within the Office of the Auditor General, similar to the commissioner of the environment. That model would have leveraged an existing institution and reduced duplication. The government instead chose a stand-alone agent of Parliament with a separate office, separate staff and separate budget. The real test should be whether a proposal improves outcomes on the ground, not whether it creates an office in Ottawa.

Reconciliation is measured in results. A commissioner would not build a home, sign an agreement or ensure that a department meets a timeline it has already missed. What would do that is ministerial responsibility and clear consequences for failure. If a modern treaty commitment is not being met, the responsible minister should have to explain that to Parliament. The department should have measurable implementation plans, codeveloped with treaty partners, that are reported publicly and tied to performance evaluations to senior officials. If officials refuse to act, they should not be promoted. If ministers ignore repeated warnings, they should answer for that in the House.

Conservatives support modern treaties and self-determination. We want to see a Canada in which indigenous and non-indigenous communities share in prosperity and in which agreements are honoured in practice, not just in words. Where Conservatives part on the bill is not the goal of accountability but on the tool the government has chosen; of course, that is based on their record. I have tuned into previous questions and answers on this very bill, and I know government members opposite may try to twist our words, so I will make this very clear. At a time when Canadians are struggling with the cost of living and when the federal public service has grown dramatically in size and cost, the answer to every problem in Ottawa cannot be more and more offices, more and more layers of reporting and more and more costs. Parliament should be careful not to confuse activity with results.

It is tempting to think that if we pass a bill and create a commissioner, we have solved the problem. The record of past reports and offices tells us otherwise. Instead of building a new bureaucracy and what seems to be the easy get-out-of-jail-free card policy solution to the government's past failures, we should strengthen the accountability of the systems we already have. We should insist that departments act on Auditor General recommendations. We should require transparent implementation plans for each treaty. We should empower indigenous governments as true partners, not as clients waiting for Ottawa to police itself.

This is the approach the Conservatives will continue to bring to this debate. We stand up for treaty rights, for the honour of the Crown and for a vision of reconciliation that is grounded in results, not just in rhetoric.

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

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about Bill C-10, this is not just a focus being introduced by the government. This is, in essence, being led by indigenous communities and indigenous leaders. When we talk about reconciliation, this could be a part of it in a very positive way.

Based on the Conservative opposition that we continue to see in the filibuster of the legislation and the behaviour of the leader of the Conservative Party, who completely ignores indigenous communities on major projects, would the member not agree that the Conservative Party's approach to indigenous-related issues would appear to be nothing but artificial?

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we understand why indigenous people are pushing for this. It is because they are frustrated. They are frustrated with the government's failure to follow the findings from the reports of the Auditor General and actually implement the solutions that have been highlighted. Where we deviate from the government is that we think we need to follow the reports and enforce the rules already on the books. We do not need more bureaucracy. We do not need more government. That is going to ramp up costs and not achieve the results we are looking for.

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague talking about ways the government could be more transparent in the implementation of modern treaties. Could he give us a brief summary of what is not working? He said that we do not need another commissioner. The Bloc Québécois supports the bill, but I would like to know more about what he is actually suggesting.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General, who was deemed an expert on this issue years ago when the reports were done, already highlighted the significant gaps in the implementation of modern treaties. That is why we are questioning the need for a brand new bureaucracy that is going to ramp up costs. If we already have an Auditor General who has highlighted the gaps, all we need now is direct ministerial accountability, responsible to the House, and enforceable measures that are enforced when the government fails to implement the treaties it negotiates.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague would like to take some time to elaborate on what our jobs are here, and specifically the jobs of the government and the ministers. Why do we need an extra layer of bureaucracy when they can simply keep promises?

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, ministers need to be accountable for government programs and obligations and the treaties they sign that they choose to implement. We see a theme happening over and over again in the House by the Liberal government. Every time a program introduced by the government, like a treaty in this case, is signed off on and fails to get implemented properly, the solution from the government seems to be that we need more government.

At a time when Canadians all across the country are facing increased costs to their standard of living and are facing more and more pressures, we see from the government the need to spend even more money, creating a new bureaucracy for oversight instead of using the tools we already have.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I wonder if the member can share with us how the Conservatives were protecting the rights of indigenous peoples when they worked with the Liberals to help expedite the passing of Bill C-5.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the Conservative record on indigenous relationships is clear. When Prime Minister Harper held office, we signed and implemented five modern treaties in six years.

We always stand with indigenous people. We stand with reconciliation and with all first nations people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to speak to Bill C-10, an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation. This is actually the second time this bill was introduced. It was introduced as Bill C-77 in the previous Parliament. The Bloc Québécois supported the bill then and we still do today.

I would like to acknowledge the first nations who live in my riding and with whom I interact. I am talking about the Naskapi, who have a modern treaty, one of the first reached with Quebec in the 1970s. I would also like to acknowledge the Innu, particularly the Regroupement Petapan, which brings together the Innu first nations in Essipit, Nutashkuan and Mashteuiatsh, which is not located in my riding but in the riding of Lac‑Saint‑Jean. They have been trying to negotiate a modern treaty for 45 years. I am talking about negotiations, not even about implementation. I acknowledge them because it takes courage, perseverance, patience and even tolerance for them to work toward getting their rights recognized and included in a treaty.

We are obviously in favour of the bill because it is all well and good to say that we have a treaty, a treaty is just a vessel. We are also interested in content. It remains a promise, and it is time for action.

I must humbly say that I have now been the member for the riding of Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, formerly Manicouagan, for 10 years. I witnessed everything that led up to the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a process that was not easy. These rights were already being discussed long before I arrived. Essentially, we managed to enshrine that in law, but the fact remains that, under the banner of truth and reconciliation, emphasis on the word “banner”, actions are largely symbolic. Once again, we are dealing with form, communication, and appearances. However, on the ground, in the communities, in my opinion, there is no real reconciliation, and indigenous communities still do not have full access to the truth. These are therefore still only symbolic gestures.

I have heard the argument put forward by my Conservative colleagues. They say that such a measure is unnecessary, that mechanisms already exist to ensure transparency. They cite the example of the Auditor General and other positions, which, in their view, guarantee government accountability. However, these mechanisms sometimes appear to be deficient, not in terms of the Office of the Auditor General, but rather in terms of the consequences that the government should face when it fails to act as it should or within the prescribed time frame.

I can understand that argument, but at the same time, this is about defending a cause. As a Bloc Québécois member, I do not think that Quebec's voice would be heard if I were not here. I am not speaking about myself alone, of course, but my party colleagues as well. I would never be so arrogant as to say that simply about myself. In short, the Bloc Québécois is there to defend Quebec and Quebec's interests only. The same applies here. If we are not getting the results we want because of a lack of mechanisms ensuring transparent implementation and government accountability, we would obviously support the creation of a commissioner position to fill that void. In fact, indigenous peoples are calling for the creation of just such a position, which sends a clear signal. They do not feel that they are being respected. I therefore believe that we must hear them, listen to them and consult them as part of the truth and reconciliation process, because that is essential to any agreement. I think their request is legitimate.

I have spoken about the form and legitimacy of the first nations' request and about the issue of symbolic gestures, which we want to move past, but I still have some criticisms of the bill and would like to hear my colleagues' opinions afterwards.

The mechanism, of course, includes an annual report that lists, for example, the government's shortcomings in implementing modern treaties. This annual report is first submitted to the minister. Then, the minister has up to 15 sitting days from the time it is submitted to table it in the House so we can consider it. Bloc Québécois members would obviously like to receive the report immediately. We do not see why we should have to wait extra time, since the number of days the minister can wait before tabling the report in the House of Commons is highly variable, highly relative and therefore highly arbitrary. There are in fact two types of reports, and I will explain the distinction between them.

The first type is the annual report. Tabling a report in June right before the House rises obviously does not have the same impact as tabling a report during the fall, when we are sitting all the time, except for two weeks. In the latter case, we would get the report quickly. That is the first criticism. Why not give us the report right away so that we can examine it and take action as opposition members?

Let us now talk about the second type of report. The commissioner can submit a special report when they believe it is of pressing importance and should not be delayed. In my opinion, when the submission of a report cannot be delayed and a limited report is made available quickly, it is because there is an issue that needs to be dealt with urgently. If it is an urgent matter, I question the usefulness of submitting the report to the minister following the exact same rules, that is, a waiting period of 15 working days from the time the report is submitted to the minister to when we receive it. In my opinion, this does not work. If there is an emergency, we really should receive the report right away, so that we can take action.

All that first nations are asking for is transparency, so that modern treaties can be implemented quickly. Indeed, the whole issue of how fast this can be done is a factor. As I said at the outset, I have first nations in my riding that have been negotiating for 45 years. For the time being, they have no treaty. Are we going to make them wait another 50 years before these treaties are fully implemented? That is unacceptable. We want to speed things up. We also want government accountability. Naturally, the opposition parties require that same accountability. We need to be able to hold the government to account.

For all these reasons, although we accept the bill, we would like to study it in committee so we can improve it. We want the process to be really easy and to go quickly and smoothly, and we want the government to be active, but, as I humbly repeat, I have been here for 10 years and I get the impression that time moves slower in the House. It seems like things that could be done quickly and efficiently if there were some degree of determination always end up taking incredible detours and being seriously delayed. Nothing gets done. That is why, if we need mechanisms or a position like commissioner for modern treaty implementation on a temporary or long-term basis to get the government moving, then we would support that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate a number of the comments the member put on the record this afternoon. It would appear as if she is supportive, at least in principle, of the legislation.

Part of the issue for us is recognizing that in order for the legislation to advance to committee, we need to get support from, in particular, the Conservative Party, which continues to want to prevent it from going to committee.

I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts in regard to that, given the importance of the fact that indigenous community leaders are pushing for the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, the fact is, it is the government's responsibility to get the Conservative Party to accept the bill. We agree on the principle and want to study the bill. However, perhaps the government has not been able to fully convince everyone. I think it is the government's job to convince the Conservative Party, so I urge the government to have a conversation with the Conservative Party.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to partly address the comment made by the parliamentary secretary. I do not think anybody is obstructing anything. I just think every member in this House should have the same amount of time to participate in debate and speak to a bill as the member for Winnipeg North, the parliamentary secretary. That is fair to all members of Parliament.

I appreciate the feedback from the Bloc Québécois member on this bill, especially the ideas for improvement when it comes to the reporting timelines. She makes a compelling case for why she thinks this bill and this requirement are needed. However, I would like her to comment, as she has been here for 10 years, on the sad state of affairs that we have a federal Liberal government that refuses to be accountable in the first place and does not just do the right thing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would need 10 years just to answer my colleague's question. My answer would also likely be very broad.

Whether we are talking about indigenous affairs or other issues, everything is being dragged out, as I said earlier. I get the impression that there is no will to do anything. I am seeing this with committees in particular right now. I was not planning on bringing this up, but it is clear that the government has no desire to convene committees, no desire to call witnesses, no desire to work and no intention of introducing any bills.

Even though we are told that it is not the same government, it has been the same government for 10 years. I feel that its members have no desire to work.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, the member was a productive member at the indigenous and northern affairs committee during her time there, and I want to thank her for her efforts at that committee.

Next week, we will have the Assembly of First Nations in town for its annual general assembly. We will have hundreds of chiefs and more than 600 first nations community members from all across Canada. They will be asking us what we are doing to improve their legislation and what we are doing to improve their quality of life.

I wonder if the member opposite could talk to us a bit about how we should be collaborating to ensure that while these chiefs, who are an integral part of Canada, are here, we are showing them that we can work collaboratively across party lines to ensure we are doing the best for them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my colleague.

With all due respect, what I would say to the Assembly of First Nations is that the government must pass laws itself to monitor it and ensure that it is doing the work it is supposed to do.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question for my colleague is about indigenous relations.

I know that there are several indigenous nations in her riding and that, historically, relations have been difficult. This means that it may have been challenging to built a relationship of trust over the years.

In this context, we see that the government deciding to go back on its word—

[The Acting Speaker, Dane Lloyd]

The member for Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan has 10 seconds to respond.

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

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the current government is less interested in indigenous issues. As an elected official, I find it rather appalling to see—

[The Acting Speaker, Dane Lloyd]

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Nunavut.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, Bill C-10 is a reproduction of Bill C-77, which was originally tabled in the last Parliament. As we did at that time, we support this bill in its current form, as it is a reproduction.

I would like to thank, first of all, Aluki Kotierk, who was the former president of Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated. She worked hard to ensure this bill would be introduced to help make sure that modern treaty obligations are being implemented. I also thank the Liberals for putting it in the calendar so we can inch it forward toward getting it to committee to make any amendments to help make sure the issues posed during debate are addressed.

Bill C-10 has been in the works for more than 20 years. Indigenous modern treaty partners have been working toward this. They have sought the independent oversight and accountability mechanisms of the federal government on modern treaty implementation.

There are some reasons we support this bill. First, it is a safeguard. Second, it would help ensure accountability and would put Canada in line with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous peoples have been partners in the creation of this bill, and it would advance reconciliation and self-determination. I think helping to realize the full potential of modern treaties is an important foundation of this bill.

Just to briefly explain what I mean by it being a safeguard for indigenous modern treaty partners, it would help implement specific modern treaty obligations. Canada is currently implementing 27 modern treaties. Of these 27 modern treaties, six include only a comprehensive land claim settlement agreement, one includes only self-government provisions and is unrelated to any land claim, and 20 address both comprehensive land claims and self-government in some way.

The first modern treaty was signed in 1975, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. The Nunavut Agreement was signed in 1993. I had the pleasure of being there when it was signed. The Whitecap Dakota Nation in 2023 is the latest.

Accountability would be seen if this bill is implemented by ensuring that the federal government meet its treaty obligations. We need to be reminded of the context of why this bill is particularly important. It is because the Liberal government is ignoring the rights and title of indigenous people in resource extraction and economic development in the name of nation building, specifically through Bill C-5.

Modern treaties are a constitutionally entrenched commitment between the Crown and indigenous partners to build true nation-to-nation, Inuit-Crown and government-to-government relationships. Establishing the commissioner would bring Canada in line with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, honouring commitments and advancing reconciliation with indigenous peoples. An independent commissioner with audit and reporting powers could hold government departments to account and overcome long-standing inertia in treaty implementation.

As I said earlier, this bill was created in consultation with indigenous modern treaty partners. Indeed, they asked for this legislation.

When Bill C-77 was originally tabled, there had been engagement with over 130 indigenous groups, including indigenous modern treaty partners, indigenous groups negotiating modern treaties, self-government agreement holders, national indigenous organizations, and provincial and territorial governments. I met with the Land Claims Agreements Coalition previously, as well as others, and there was overwhelming support for the passage of this bill.

Bill C-10 would advance reconciliation and self-determination through oversight and accountability of the federal government. Modern treaties create stability and predictability over rights, lands and interests. For example, the signing of the Nunavut Agreement included the creation of the Nunavut Impact Review Board, a strengthened role for hunters and trappers, and the important signing of a draft Nunavut land use plan. The bill would help realize the full potential of modern treaties and self-government arrangements.

About 1.8 million people self-identified as indigenous in the 2021 census, representing about 5% of the population. There needs to be better and timelier treaty implementation that would reduce legal disputes and uncertainty, enabling indigenous economic participation.

Indigenous gross domestic product has posted positive growth every year since 2012. It grew from $41.7 billion in 2012 to $54.1 billion in 2019. Indigenous entrepreneurship is on the rise, with self-employment rates among first nations, Métis and Inuit having increased since 2016. Indigenous entrepreneurs contribute approximately $48.9 billion to the Canadian economy, a figure that could increase if systemic barriers such as limited access to federal procurement opportunities are addressed.

I would like to take this time to address some of the Conservatives' concerns about what they are calling additional bureaucracy.

The bill would create a new office with costs, but it would include co-operation with the Office of the Auditor General to reduce duplication, possibly allowing for efficiency gains. There would be improved certainty and accountability around treaty obligations, which could de-risk investment, particularly in northern and resource regions, supporting project finance and partnerships.

As a reminder, Bill C-5 created new bureaucracy, two new offices, yet the Conservatives supported Bill C-5 and to have it expedited. For them to call into question whether the bill before us is appropriate because it would create a commissioner position to ensure that treaty obligations are being met is a serious concern that we must address and that can be addressed at the committee stage.

New Democrats stand in partnership with the indigenous modern treaty partners who have been consulted and are advocating for the creation of this new office of a commissioner for modern treaty implementation.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for her work at the indigenous and northern affairs committee when she was there.

She talked a lot about why it is important for us to have oversight when we are looking at modern-day treaties and the things that Canada has agreed to. When I was speaking with some of the stakeholders who have been pushing for this, they said we really needed accountability and really needed people to ensure we are moving forward on implementing the treaty promises we make.

The member opposite talked a little about economic outputs and ensuring that indigenous people are part of the growth that is happening in Canada. In budget 2025, there were some significant items for her riding of Nunavut. I am wondering if she could talk about how indigenous people in her riding and across Canada are becoming a big part of the economic growth of this country.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, Bill C-10 is particularly important, because both Liberals and Conservatives, having been governing parties, have not fully implemented their obligations to treaty implementation. We need someone outside the Auditor General's office for that.

The Auditor General does important work to make sure that operations are being held accountable, yet their work is only focused on what can be seen from an administrative point of view. The commissioner would make sure that implementation and legal obligations are being met. This office would help make sure there is a targeted approach to making sure that obligations are being met so we see economic benefits stemming from modern treaty partners.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, part of what the bill would do, as I understand, is imbue the commissioner with maintaining the honour of the Crown, which is an integral legal principle in indigenous-Crown relations.

Is the member comfortable with having the government delegate to a bureaucrat part of its responsibility to maintain the honour of the Crown? Should that responsibility not stay with the minister and with cabinet?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, there would be no delegation to the commissioner regarding that.

I do hope the member educates himself in a better way, to make sure that the commissioner and the office of the commissioner would investigate, would analyze, and would look at what is being implemented by the federal government, whose sole responsibility is to ensure that the honour of the Crown is being met by all governments.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nunavut, whom I hold in high regard. I used to work with her on the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, and she obviously cares a lot about this issue.

There are several indigenous groups that participated in the consultations on this bill. I would like to know what their concerns are in terms of the possibility that the bill may not be passed.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I share my sense of friendship with the MP as well.

What we have seen from the Liberal government, for example in working with the Conservatives on expediting Bill C-5, is that there are real concerns that any government will continue to violate the rights of indigenous peoples, including the right to free, prior and informed consent. We saw that most recently with the Prime Minister's signing an MOU with the Premier of Alberta without the free, prior and informed consent.

The treaty commissioner would need to be able to monitor these kinds of situations and make sure UNDRIP is being implemented regarding modern treaties as well as any obligations that any government has towards its fiduciary duties towards first nations, Inuit and Métis.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, today we are discussing a fundamental principle: the relationship between the state and indigenous peoples. This relationship is not an exercise in bureaucracy. It does not call for a new organizational chart to be created or a new position to be established in Ottawa. It is a relationship based on honour, based on commitments made and based on the ability of the government to live up to its word.

However, for the past 10 years, the government has been doing exactly the opposite. It has made more promises, expanded the bureaucracy, hired more public servants, spent more money and achieved fewer results. Even now, with Bill C‑10, I get the feeling that the same mistakes are being repeated. The Liberals want to create a new commissioner, they want more bureaucracy, they want another layer of oversight and they want to increase spending. It is as though every time the bureaucracy fails, the solution is more bureaucracy.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. We had the opportunity to hear from several commissioners who all told us pretty much the same thing: They are underfunded and they do not always have an easy relationships with the government. There is a discrepancy between the facts and perceptions. Here are the facts: A new commissioner would not be able to push the government to take action because, basically, the government rarely listens to commissioners. More oversight and less action is not a real solution.

The government would have us believe that creating a commissioner for modern treaty implementation would be an easy fix, but let us face the facts: Commissioners do not have any binding authority. They cannot compel any department to honour treaties. They cannot impose sanctions, allocate resources or force action. All they can do is observe inaction. In other words, they monitor. When a treaty is not respected, the first nations will still be the ones who have to go to court, even though they have no real resources to do so.

Creating a new commissioner position is tantamount to admitting that we have not been doing our job for years. Yet another report is not suddenly going to change a system that is already failing to meet its obligations. The Liberals are just giving the illusion of taking action, while enjoying the comfort of bureaucracy, which is something they have been doing for the past 10 years.

I will give an example. In the past 10 years, 100,000 public servants have been hired within the government. Every year, more than $20 billion is spent on external consultants. The public service has never been bigger, yet public services, housing, immigration, finance, infrastructure and indigenous programs have never been more ineffective. In the wake of this colossal failure, the Liberals say that they have the solution. They are going to create a new office, more bureaucracy, another commissioner and yet another structure. It feels like the more obstacles, the better. It is a madhouse full of paper pushers. The goal is to find busy work to keep someone in an office when, instead, resources should be sent onto the ground to provide support to people and try to understand them.

When I do not know everything there is to know about a given issue, which happens regularly because, as a new member, I have a lot to learn, I always call people on the ground. I call people in Montmorency—Charlevoix and I call experts. In this case, I called people in indigenous communities. I want their perspective. I want to hear their opinion and to hear about specific details that may have escaped me. This way, I can improve my personal skill set. I think that, by working on the ground, we can truly improve things the right way and find meaningful solutions.

Yesterday, I called someone I know well, who is on a band council and who took the time to read the bill, the structures it proposes and Ottawa's explanation. He said, “Gabriel, we don't want oversight. What we want is internal capacity. We want to be able to take action right here at home. Give us the tools, not a commissioner. Give us programs to develop expertise within our band councils. We want to be autonomous, not controlled.”

I think that makes a lot of sense, but he said something else that I think should resonate here in the House. He said, “The problem is not a lack of oversight, it's that the government is getting in the way. It needs to stop interfering in everything. It needs to stop saying that it knows how to manage our communities better than we do. It should teach us, support us, guide us, but stop trying to control everything.”

These are not my words, they are the words of a first nations person who works directly on a band council. This is what communities are saying. This is what chiefs want. This is what the government seems to have trouble hearing.

Modern treaties are powerful tools when they are implemented. The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, signed in 1975, was the first modern treaty. Modern treaties have demonstrated that rights can be recognized, local institutions can be created, indigenous education and health systems can be established, and regional governance can exist.

They have also taught us a valuable lesson, namely that even the best treaties in the world are worthless if the government does not implement them. A number of modern treaties have been negotiated over the years. In fact, five modern treaties were negotiated in six years under the Harper government. Over the past 10 years, under the Liberals, there have been none. Conservatives believe in and support modern treaties.

What we do not support is the idea that creating more bureaucracy is going to solve the problem. It was not a lack of oversight that has caused the problems. Rather, it has been a lack of enforcement, a lack of real political will and a lack of accountability within government departments. Now the government is saying that a commissioner could be the answer. Well, that is not the case at all. Quite frankly, given recent history, it is a bit of an insult to people's intelligence to suggest that more bureaucracy is going to be an effective solution.

The real issue is having more internal capacity, not more external oversight. What indigenous communities say they really want are tools, effective programs, resources, training, transfer of jurisdiction, financial stability, predictability and genuine autonomy. In fact, I think what they want is pretty much the same thing that society in general wants: more control over their own lives, more independence and less management by government.

What indigenous communities want is the ability to administer their own affairs and take charge of their own development. They do not want to be managed by Ottawa like public service subcontractors. True autonomy is not about being watched. True autonomy is about being able to act.

Unfortunately, according to the Liberal philosophy, the state always knows better than the individual. The Liberals are incapable of designing a Canada where people make their own decisions, where communities manage themselves, where local governments are responsible and where indigenous institutions are respected.

According to their ideological vision, Liberals believe that Ottawa has to monitor, has to govern, has to dictate, has to comment, has to oversee. They want to teach from above rather than support from the side. They want to control rather than guide. I think they have forgotten that being a government means supporting the people. It is said that the foundation of our democracy lies in our institutions. A foundation is not above the people. A foundation is below them. In fact, if the foundation were put on the roof, the house would be quite rickety indeed. Perhaps the government members should keep in mind that they are here to support, to listen and to bring considerations from people on the ground to the House for discussion.

Bill C-10 ultimately represents more bureaucracy. However, there is a very logical alternative. Ministers should be made accountable. Each minister should report to Parliament on treaty implementation. Treaty obligations should be incorporated into ministerial mandates; no more excuses and vague responsibilities. The government should fund the internal capacity of communities to train, support, transfer and stabilize, not just supervise and control. We should be reducing bureaucracy, not trying to increase it. That is not a solution. Finally, the government should get out of the way.

As my friend from the band council said to me, we need to support them, not take over. Indigenous communities do not need a commissioner. The government needs a mirror. The best solution is simple. The government needs to do its job, keep its promises, meet its obligations and let the communities govern themselves.

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

Madam Speaker, I find it somewhat ironic. Here we are talking about Bill C-10. The Conservatives have made it very clear they do not want it and are going to vote against it, even though indigenous community leaders want the legislation to pass. The Conservatives want to continue the filibuster.

Then we witnessed this week the leader of the Conservative Party's saying outright that we do not need to consult with indigenous people and that if we want a pipeline, it is no problem at all; we should just build the pipeline without caring what the Province of B.C. has to say or what indigenous people have to say in regard to it.

Does the member not agree that the Conservative Party leader seems to be out of tune with what reconciliation is all about?

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is always very interesting to hear my colleague opposite quote his own boss, who says “Who cares?” more often than we do. Yesterday, I spoke to someone who is on a band council. This is what he told me: “Never forget that every nation has its values and every nation has a different culture.”

The Liberals tell us that they consulted everyone, but the reality is that this is a complex issue and that we need to work on the ground, not by putting more people in an office, not by having more administration, not by listening less. We have to be on the ground to work because we actually do care.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to explore this Conservative philosophy with my colleague to make sure I understand. Today, we are being told that we must respect the internal capacity of indigenous peoples, equip them, and allow them to develop.

However, yesterday's announcement was about a pipeline project out west. The Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs says that it does not want the pipeline and was not consulted. The Conservative Party is not only supporting the Liberal government on this pipeline, but it is also saying that it needs to happen faster.

Is that what my colleague meant by respect for the internal capacity of indigenous peoples?

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, respecting communities means listening to them and ensuring that we work with them. From what I am being told on the ground, for the past 11 years, treaties have not been signed or respected and there has been no accountability. I think the first thing to do when we want to ensure that communities are respected is to take action and keep our word. The Conservatives will always be there to do just that.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, other than the concern about increasing bureaucracy, I do not hear any real concerns from the Conservatives about what the problems with Bill C-10 are. Currently, the only way to make sure that the implementation of modern treaties is resolved is through court cases.

I wonder if the member agrees that having a commissioner to monitor the implementation of legal treaties is a much better way than long disputes through the courts.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, my answer will be very simple.

First, it is up to ministers to make sure that they are doing what they said they were going to do. There is no point in appointing a commissioner who has no power, unlike a minister.

Second, I disagree. I did not just talk about bureaucracy. What I said was that we want to make improvements in terms of program effectiveness, resources, training, transfer of jurisdiction, financial stability, predictability and true autonomy. The Conservatives are proposing to work with people and give them real access to resources, not just to forms and bureaucracy. The idea that something will happen on the ground because there is new state intervention is just smoke and mirrors.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I do not think the member understood my question, so I will ask it again.

I was asking about how to resolve disputes. Currently, there is no other mechanism to resolve disputes between modern treaties and the federal government. The only system is through the courts.

I wonder if the member agrees that a better way to resolve disputes between the federal government and the first modern treaty holders is to have the commissioner position.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, once again, I will give a very quick answer to the question.

The Ethics Commissioner is having a hard time ensuring that our Prime Minister is not breaking his own ethics rules. I do not think that a new commissioner is going to solve anything for first nations. That is not going to help us move forward. If we want to move forward, we need to work together, keep our word and make ministers responsible for their decisions.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House and speak on behalf of my constituents in York—Durham.

While I am from York—Durham, which is a riding in the greater Toronto area, what people may not realize is that I actually represent two first nations communities: the Chippewas of Georgina Island first nation and the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation. Both were included in my new riding of York—Durham during the last redistribution, so that is part of the great pleasure I have had as the new member for this new riding of York—Durham. Previously, the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation was part of another member's riding, and, similarly, the Chippewas of Georgina Island first nation were part of another member's riding. Now I have the pleasure of representing both first nations.

Part of my job and my experience as a new member has been doing some outreach to each first nation, as I do to communities across my riding, to get to know them and their issues. I have had the pleasure of getting to know both bands, their leadership and their communities more generally; in particular, there are Chief Donna Big Canoe of the Chippewas and Chief Kelly LaRocca of the Mississaugas.

I had the pleasure of attending the Mississaugas' powwow this past summer to learn a little bit more about their history and their culture. What I have learned so far is that both first nations in my riding are striving to be modern and effective bands that work toward the good of their residents and the prosperity of not only their communities but also the larger community. For the Mississaugas, that is in Port Perry; for the Chippewas, that is the town of Georgina. I am happy to report that there are strong relationships between both municipalities and the first nations side by side.

I really view my role, in this case, as giving assistance to first nations, as I give to other municipalities, and being a good representative for them in Ottawa. I have learned that they are both entrepreneurial and community-minded. For example, the Mississaugas are the majority owners of the Minogi corporation, a new clean energy investment company, and the Voyager Services Limited company, a provider of nuclear and energy construction solutions. Last year, those companies announced collaboration with the Cameco company, a marquee Canadian company. To me that just shows the entrepreneurship of the first nations in my community, specifically the Mississaugas in that case.

The Chippewas have long operated the Island View Business Centre and then more recently opened a new business venture with the Seven Generations Commercial Centre and GoIn Fuels. I had an opportunity to help cut a ribbon there earlier this summer. They are not free from difficulties, like many communities. In the case of the Chippewas, the band is located on an island. That presents significant challenges for transportation and health care.

Unfortunately, there are great ironies in Liberal green energy policies, carbon taxes, eco-justice or whatever other name it has been called; they have sort of been falling away from that. When the minister was still in cabinet at least, they were pursuing these policies. One of the great ironies of that is that transportation to the Chippewas of Georgina Island is fuelled by a ferry that runs on diesel fuel, which was subject to the carbon tax. There was no ability for members of the band and community to get back and forth to the island other than on a ferry fuelled by diesel fuel. They just had to pay more out of pocket because of that carbon tax. That is an outstanding issue that the government has failed to address and has failed to make proper compensation for, in my opinion.

Now, being in Ontario, these bands have a different history than those that are subject to modern treaties, of course, because both bands were subject to treaties that existed in Ontario. There are two significant treaties: the Coldwater-Narrows treaty and the Williams Treaties. Both are now largely settled. They were largely settled by the previous Conservative government. That is a bit of a trend we have heard about today in the speeches.

It is clear that under the previous Conservative government, there was movement; there was political will to engage in good-faith treaty negotiation and settlements and, at least in my community, that resulted in the Coldwater-Narrows treaty and the completion of most of the Williams treaty settlement.

However, when it comes to Bill C-10, I just have one question: Why can the government not just do its job? It seems that every time there is a problem, the government for the last 10 years, and especially the new old government, seems to create some new bureaucracy. We have a problem in housing, so we need another bureaucracy. We have a problem with modern treaties and enforcing them, so we will create a new bureaucracy. However, another bureaucrat will not tell us anything we do not already know. For all the lip service that the government has paid to indigenous issues for the last 10 years, it remains, in my opinion, as fractured as it has ever been. There are, in fact, dozens of Auditor General reports from the last decade touching on aboriginal people's issues in Canada. Perhaps we should start with dealing with those before we create a new commissioner to give us more reports.

I want to focus for a bit of time on the supposed mandate of this new bureaucrat. The first mandate in Bill C-10 is “strengthening the relationships between the Government of Canada and Indigenous modern treaty partners”. As I said, I do not think this bureaucrat would tell us anything we do not already know. Is it not the minister's job to maintain good relationships with indigenous and aboriginal peoples across Canada? Is that not something she is capable of doing? Is it not the Governor in Council's job, acting through cabinet and the Prime Minister, to maintain those good relationships? Why can they not do that themselves?

The second mandate for this commissioner would be, “fulfilling the Government of Canada’s obligations under, and achieving the objectives of, modern treaties, these obligations and objectives being interpreted in a broad and purposive manner”. Of course the government should fulfill its obligations under a treaty. Indeed, it should fulfill its obligations and agreements with all Canadians. When the government says it will do something, it should do something. However, what is missing from this objective is any reference to protecting the rights of the Crown contained in any modern treaty. These treaties are two-way streets. They create rights and obligations, and I do not see how this commissioner would do the latter.

The third mandate would be, “upholding the honour of the Crown in respect of the timely and effective implementation of modern treaties.” Just a moment ago, I was accused of not having read the bill, but I assure the member for Nunavut that I did read the bill, and it does say that the commissioner's mandate would be to uphold the honour of the Crown. This is a fundamental aspect of aboriginal law that every law student learns about: that the honour of the Crown is always at stake in our discussions and interactions with aboriginal peoples. It can give rise to different duties in different circumstances, but what constitutes honourable conduct will vary in the circumstances. For example, the Crown should not act dishonourably or engage in sharp dealings, and because treaties are not simply contracts, a generous interpretation is necessary. It gives rise to the duty to consult, of course, and requires diligent good-faith implementation of treaties.

There are other aspects of the honour of the Crown, but the ultimate purpose, in my view, is toward the reconciliation of pre-existing aboriginal peoples and the assertion of Canadian sovereignty in the modern era. The honour of the Crown is fundamental in dealings between the federal and provincial governments and aboriginal peoples. In my humble view, at least, this is not something that can or should be delegated to a bureaucrat, a mere functionary. Where is the minister? Where is cabinet? Where is the Prime Minister? The government cannot and should not abdicate its responsibilities to functionaries. This is an important aspect, and it is incumbent on the minister, who is responsible for her department, to maintain the honour of the Crown, not on a commissioner.

Even if we accept that such a position is necessary or desirable, which we do not on this side of the House, in my view, the new bureaucrat would be missing a key power, and that is the power to do anything about new modern treaties. There would be no power to engage in negotiations; there would be no power to do any of the things that the government says should be done with respect to reconciliation. Therefore, we are left to conclude that this new position would, again, be mere window dressing and mere lip service. This is a continuing departure from parliamentary accountability and parliamentary supremacy, and it is a troubling trend of the Liberal government. In my view, the minister must be responsible for these relations, for their successes and their failures. The government must be responsible, not a new bureaucrat.

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

Madam Speaker, what has become very clear is that the Conservative Party is going to do what it can to prevent this particular piece of legislation from passing. That is really quite unfortunate, because the legislation is actually indigenous-led. The Conservatives' continued refusal to allow it to go committee is going to make things very difficult, and they know that.

In addition, there are the actions earlier this week of the leader of the Conservative Party, who takes the approach that we do not need to consult with indigenous people and with provinces when it comes to major building projects to build Canada strong.

I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts as to why the Conservative leader is behaving more like a little dictator than like a leader of an official opposition.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, for those who are offended, I will recall the word “dictator”, but the point is still made.

[Some hon. members]

That's unparliamentary—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

It is not unparliamentary. It is not necessarily nice, but it is not unparliamentary.

The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes is rising on a point of order.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, will it satisfy the Chair for me to call the member for Winnipeg North “a little dictator”?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

It goes both ways.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

I will, and so the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member was not being recognized for a question or for a point of order, and I clarified.

The hon. member for York—Durham.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, ad hominem attacks—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. members will allow the hon. member for York—Durham to answer a question.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, we should all strive to be honourable members in the House. I think that the actions of the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, his ad hominem attacks, simply will reveal more about his character than about the strong character of our leader, the leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's speech was really interesting. I just want him to say again quickly why this particular bill is not the right bill to actually get things done, seeing as how there has been so much more bureaucracy already added in the Liberal government.

Why would the bill not work?

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, we know it would not work, because we have the history to prove it. The government has been in power for 10 years, and not one modern treaty has been moved forward. However, the previous Conservative government moved forward five or six modern treaties, not to mention the settlements in my community that I described: the Coldwater-Narrows settlement and the Williams Treaties settlement, both under the Conservative government.

The bill would not work, because the Liberals will not take responsibility for their failure on the file.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member about his previous comment, in which he said that our government was resorting to ad hominem arguments. This is when someone attacks the person and has no actual logical argument, which is something Conservatives do in the House every day. They talk about the Prime Minister's being disloyal to the country, and they berate immigrants as being the source of our economic troubles.

Can the member opposite mention whether he has ever resorted to an ad hominem argument in the House and whether he actually believes that the Prime Minister of Canada is not working on behalf of this country?

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I of course question the ethics of the Prime Minister, because the facts lead me to do so. The Prime Minister is so conflicted, and there is evidence before us: an $80-billion nuclear deal to Brookfield; $500 million to the European Space Agency, which will benefit Brookfield; and undisclosed meetings with Brookfield executives, which is a direct violation of what the Ethics Commissioner told him to do.

If I have those facts, should I not come to the conclusion that the Prime Minister is unethical?

(The House resumed at 12 p.m.)

The House resumed from November 28, 2025, consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act respecting the Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in consideration of Bill C-10, legislation that would create a new officer of Parliament to oversee how the federal government implements modern treaties.

At its core, I think it is important to note that this bill proposes yet another office and another bureaucracy to monitor the very departments that already struggle to live up to the agreements Canada has signed with indigenous nations. While the intention, I think, is to strengthen accountability, the question before us is whether Bill C-10 would actually deliver on that accountability, or if it would simply create the appearance of doing so.

Because modern treaties govern things such as land ownership, natural resources, financial compensation and more, these are things that we are now talking about more than ever as we see whether the Liberal government is truly going to approve the building of a pipeline to the Pacific, open new mines, get LNG resources to international markets and build the Canada strong that we have heard so much about.

I want to be absolutely clear from the outset that Conservatives recognize the real and long-standing frustration amongst indigenous treaty partners. We support those treaty rights, reconciliation, self-government and, of course, self-determination. We understand why many indigenous governments want stronger mechanisms to hold Ottawa to its word. That is very clear from all of the advocacy that we have heard and the strength of the advocacy from those nations.

What Bill C-10 would do, as it is drafted, would be to replace responsibility with what I think is more paperwork, which would not do what the bill says it is supposed to do. It tries to solve a performance problem by expanding bureaucracy that has already failed. Its latest iteration is a knee-jerk instinct measure, and it would measure its success by the number of reports published, instead of what I think is lacking in this place so often, which is the quality of the results delivered.

Let us go back for a moment to explain where modern treaties came from and what they were meant to fix. They emerged because historic treaties, however imperfectly honoured, did not resolve the indigenous title in large parts of this country. That legal gap remained until the Supreme Court's landmark 1973 decision that forced Ottawa to abandon denial and engage in nation-to-nation negotiation. From that decision came the first modern treaty, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement in 1975, and 26 similar agreements since. These treaties define land ownership, resource rights, compensation and self-government. They are continually protected and legally binding.

For years, there has been one message from indigenous governments, and it has been a consistent message, that Canada signs agreements but too often fails to implement them, which is, frankly, not a surprise to anyone who has been around for any of these conversations here in the House or over the last number of decades in this country. The Senate recommended, in 2008, that Ottawa create an oversight body to ensure that treaties are actually carried out. Treaty partners have repeated that call many, many times since.

If we rewind to the years when Conservatives were in government, we proved that modern treaties could be signed and implemented when Ottawa stayed focused on outcomes, not simply on bureaucracy and paperwork. Between 2006 and 2015, five modern treaties of self-government agreements were concluded that advanced real economic and governance authority for indigenous communities.

Since then, under the Liberal government, the landscape looks very different. There have been countless new offices, frameworks, strategies and action plans, yet not one modern treaty has been finalized, which brings us to this conversation and why we are having it. The paper has piled very high in Ottawa and places close to Ottawa, while progress on the ground has stalled. If members have heard any of my colleagues speak about this, both in this debate and to wider issues generally, they would have heard that there is a whole bunch of rhetoric, but there are not many outcomes to match the words spoken.

I ask why this matters. This is the backdrop for Bill C-10, the piece of legislation we are discussing today. We are being told that the solution to Canada's poor implementation record is a new commissioner's office, but the oversight mechanisms already exist. The Auditor General has repeatedly examined treaty implementation. Those reports identified concrete failures, named specific departments and recommended very clear actions going forward, yet many of the same issues remain today.

People watching this would ask why that is. It is because nothing happens when a department fails to implement a treaty obligation. No one is held accountable. No one loses their job. No one stands in the House to explain why the commitment was ignored. Meanwhile, the government has built an entire ecosystem of internal bodies: the modern treaty implementation office, the deputy ministers' oversight committee, the modern treaty management environment and so on. Despite all of these federal initiatives, treaty partners still spend their time chasing the most basic compliance from Ottawa. If those structures have not fixed the problem, why should anybody in this place believe that a brand new structure, a brand new office, a brand new title or a brand new bureaucracy would suddenly succeed?

Many indigenous partners originally asked that a treaty commissioner be housed under the Auditor General, an institution that is already built for this kind of work, has already opined on this kind of work and has already given recommendations on the shortcomings of this work. Instead, the Liberals chose the most expensive option, a separate agent of Parliament with its own bureaucracy and its own budget. The real test now is not how many offices exist in Ottawa, but whether the federal government keeps its promises at all.

A commissioner cannot build housing, negotiate a treaty or force a department to meet deadlines it has already blown. Only ministerial responsibility can do that. We have said this time and time again, but only clear performance measures co-developed by treaty partners can do that. It is a real consequence and a failure to suggest that anything else would work.

If a treaty obligation is missed, the responsible minister should stand in this chamber and answer for it. We have not seen that. Senior officials who ignore commitments should not be promoted. Departments that fail to act repeatedly should face consequences from the House. That is what accountability looks like. That is what we want to see. Conservatives believe in a strong, durable, honourable relationship with indigenous nations, and we believe that modern treaties must be more than signed documents.

Here is where we differ and here is what we want, and I will just list them quickly. We want to require departments to act on Auditor General recommendations. We want to mandate public, measurable implementation plans for each treaty. We want to empower indigenous governments as equal partners and not as observers of Ottawa's bureaucracy, and we want to ensure that ministers face consequences. That is the only real way to solve this.

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

Madam Speaker, I was doing a bit of research as my hon. colleague was speaking, and I note that the bill was co-developed with modern treaty partners. I am wondering if there is any evidence to suggest that the modern treaty partners who were involved in the development of this legislation have the same concerns that she raised in her speech.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my remarks, it was eight years ago that many of the nations asked that this be housed under the Auditor General. The reason for that is that the Auditor General has the capacity within the office to make recommendations, to find where departments have been coming up short and to provide an avenue to fix that. Just because it has not been done, it does not mean that we should give the job to another officer of Parliament, which would be created here in order to not do that job.

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

Madam Speaker, our deputy leader outlined quite well our concerns with this piece of legislation. She hit on the key point that we agree with the diagnosis that Ottawa, the government itself, has not been living up to its word in treaties, whether modern or otherwise, for decades. I think we all agree on that. We do understand the frustration that the co-drafters of this legislation have with the government's living up to its word, so we agree on that.

My friend from Thornhill highlighted where this legislation needs to have some change, which is the accountability part. There are department and auditor general reports that have all outlined the issues with the government not living up to its treaties, but the one part the legislation does not have is the accountability piece. Where is the accountability? That is where our issue stands.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. colleague for all the work he has done on this file and so many others.

I have to agree with him. Reconciliation in this country cannot be achieved by expanding Ottawa's footprint and Ottawa's bureaucracy. That is an important point that resonates right across the country because the government has failed so miserably.

Reconciliation is achieved when commitments are honoured and outcomes are delivered. In order for those outcomes to be delivered, there has to be some accountability when they are not delivered. Somebody's head needs to roll, and I say that as politely as possible, but there have to be consequences for when things are not honoured and people do not do their jobs.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on her speech. She talked about something very important, something that I see as a hallmark of the Conservative Party, specifically, government accountability. That is what the Bloc Québécois wanted to pursue with our bill, and yet that is what the Conservatives rejected. Under our bill, the government would be required to table new trade agreements in the House before they are adopted so that members could review them in advance, which is not currently the case.

I would like my colleague to explain how she can talk to us today about accountability when her party rejected a bill introduced by the Bloc Québécois calling for exactly that. I would like her to explain that inconsistency that I see here.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the member might not realize that we are speaking to Bill C-10, but I will never apologize for demanding accountability from the government, from the House, from the officers of Parliament and from the bureaucracy, which have promised things in this country and have failed to deliver on outcomes. That is not something that Conservatives will ever apologize for.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the member opposite raised the need for Canada to engage in nation-to-nation consultation, or duty to consult with indigenous nations.

She spoke about pipelines and other projects. The Prime Minister and our government have been clear that we need consultation and a better relationship with indigenous nations. Her leader has stood in the House and said that the federal government should basically override indigenous rights. Would the member not agree that a stronger, closer relationship between indigenous rights holders and the federal government is necessary?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to just put on the record that the government has been anything but clear regarding its plans on building a pipeline in this country or on getting a pipeline to tidewater. In fact, it is the House who has given the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

We are out of time.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kitchener Centre.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-10, legislation that would create a new office of the commissioner for modern treaty implementation. This bill is presented by the government as a step toward accountability and reconciliation, but when we look closely at what it would actually do, or just as importantly, what it would not do, it becomes clear that Bill C-10 mistakes process for progress and bureaucracy for leadership.

I want to begin by stating clearly and without hesitation the principle that guides our position. The problem in Canada's modern treaty system is not lack of oversight; it is a lack of execution. It is not a shortage of watchdogs; it is a shortage of accountability. The solution is not another expensive federal office in Ottawa.

For years now, indigenous treaty partners have raised serious and legitimate concerns about the pace and consistency of treaty implementation. Commitments are made, but deadlines are missed. Responsibilities are spread across multiple departments with no clear line of accountability. Files are passed from one desk to another, while communities wait for obligations that were promised, often many years ago, to finally be fulfilled.

Those frustrations are real and well documented, and they deserve a response that actually fixes the problem, but the government wants Canadians to believe that the solution is to create yet another layer of bureaucracy, a new multi-million dollar office whose primary function is to monitor and report on whether ministers and departments are actually doing their work.

The truth is far simpler. We already know the work is not being done. Indigenous partners know it, the Auditor General knows it, the courts know it and the government itself knows it. What we lack is not information; what we lack is leadership.

Bill C-10 is not accountability; it is political insulation. It would allow ministers to point to an independent office and say that the commissioner will study it or the commissioner will report on it, while the underlying failures continue. At a time when Canadians are struggling to afford groceries, housing and basic necessities, the idea that the federal government's response to failure is to expand bureaucracy rather than demand results is the exact opposite of responsible governance.

No one in the House disputes the importance of modern treaties. These agreements are not symbolic gestures. They are constitutionally protected, legally binding commitments. When they are not implemented properly, the damage is not theoretical. It affects housing, infrastructure, economic development and self-governance. It erodes trust and undermines reconciliation in very real ways.

Let us be honest about what this bill would actually do. Bill C-10 would create oversight without enforcement, audits without consequences and reports without requiring action. The proposed commissioner would have the authority to review, assess, comment and report, but they would not have the authority to compel departments to release funding, force ministers to meet deadlines, or enforce treaty rights. The power to act would remain exactly where it is today, with the same ministers and departments that have failed to deliver.

Therefore, we must ask ourselves what would actually change. The answer is, very little. We have seen this approach before, and it has failed. Canada does not suffer from a lack of reports; there are dozens of them. The Office of the Auditor General alone has produced audit after audit for nearly two decades. These audits are independent, thorough and clear in their conclusions, yet the pattern is always the same. The reports are tabled, the failures are acknowledged and then nothing happens.

A new office would not fix a culture of inaction. A new commissioner would not manufacture the political will the government has lacked for more than a decade. Oversight without enforcement is not accountability; it is theatre.

Conservatives believe in the responsible use of public funds. We also believe in not reinventing the wheel; we believe in fixing it. The Auditor General already provides Parliament with credible, authoritative oversight. The problem is not that the Auditor General lacks capacity. The problem is that the government has repeatedly ignored the findings. Instead of strengthening accountability within that existing framework, the government's answer is to create another body that would duplicate work and provide yet more reports that can be safely ignored.

Even more concerning is the way Bill C-10 would actually weaken parliamentary accountability. Under the legislation, Parliament itself cannot initiate audits. Only the commissioner, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations or a treaty partner may do so. That means that elected representatives are further removed from oversight, not empowered by it.

The bill also cannot be viewed in isolation from the government's broader record. Between 2015 and 2017, the government created multiple offices, committees and frameworks designed to improve treaty implementation. Despite all of that additional bureaucracy, the government has not concluded one single modern treaty in over 10 years. That record matters.

By contrast, under the previous Conservative government, five modern treaties were successfully negotiated and implemented in just six years. Those agreements advanced self-governance, clarified land rights and created certainty for indigenous communities. They were achieved not through endless monitoring but through leadership, accountability and a willingness to deliver results.

Supporters of Bill C-10 point to indigenous organizations that have called for independent oversight. Their frustration is understandable. Communities have waited far too long for commitments to be honoured. However, it is also important to recognize what treaty partners are actually asking for. They are not asking for more studies. They are not asking for an Ottawa-based institution to observe their frustration from a distance. They are asking for certainty. They are asking for timelines that mean something. They are asking for a federal government that follows through on what it has already agreed to. They are asking for results.

For many indigenous governments, the problem is not that Canada lacks insight into treaty implementation. The problem is that the responsibility is fragmented across multiple departments, with no single minister clearly accountable when things go wrong. When obligations fall between mandates, nothing moves. When timelines slip, no one answers for it. Bill C-10 does not resolve that fragmentation; it formalizes it.

That is why Conservatives believe that the focus must remain where the Constitution places it, on the Crown itself. The honour of the Crown cannot be delegated. It cannot be outsourced to an independent office. It rests with the ministers, who have the authority, the resources and the obligation to deliver. When that responsibility is diluted, reconciliation does not advance; it stalls. In fact, many indigenous leaders have previously argued that even if oversight needed to be strengthened, it should be done with existing institutions, particularly the Office of the Auditor General, rather than through a parallel bureaucracy.

True reconciliation respects indigenous governments and partners, not as stakeholders managed through an additional federal process. Indigenous nations are fully capable of participating directly in accountability and oversight without another Ottawa-based office inserted between them and the Crown.

The Conservatives do not come to the debate empty-handed. We come with a clear and credible alternative, one that focuses on execution, not expansion. We believe that treaty obligations must be embedded directly into departmental mandates so that responsibility is clear and unavoidable. Ministers must report directly to Parliament on their progress, not to a commissioner. Deadlines must matter. When commitments are missed, explanations must be given and consequences must follow. Accountability must reach the ministerial level, where it belongs. This is how accountability works in every other area of government. Treaty implementation should not be treated differently.

Reconciliation is not advanced by creating offices. It is advanced by meeting commitments. A commissioner will not build homes, accelerate negotiations or enforce treaty rights. Only leadership can do that. Indigenous people deserve more than symbolic structures and carefully worded reports. They deserve a government that keeps its promises. They deserve implementation, not excuses.

Bill C-10 offers the appearance of action without addressing the cause of failure. For those reasons, Conservatives oppose the bill and will continue to demand not more bureaucracy but real accountability and real results.

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

Madam Speaker, a commissioner is an independent officer of Parliament. We already have a number of different commissioners, such as the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the Commissioner of Official Languages.

This bill would establish a commissioner for modern treaty implementation. This would be a permanent oversight and accountability mechanism specifically designed to hold the Government of Canada accountable to Parliament. A commissioner does not answer to ministers or to the government. A commissioner answers to Parliament. This mechanism would provide greater transparency and accountability to Parliament. Essentially, if there is a problem, people who feel that their rights have been violated can turn to the commissioner.

Why would my colleague deny the modern treaty partners, who worked with the government on the development of this bill, the opportunity to have a permanent oversight mechanism that will be accountable to Parliament?

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Auditor General also can produce independent reports that the minister would be accountable to answer to. Creating another level of bureaucracy is not going to implement actions that are required to meet modern treaty. We do not need another level of bureaucracy. We can already get the reports and the actions from the Auditor General, so let us just work on actioning instead of creating bureaucracy.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, in the spirit of reconciliation, the Bloc Québécois supported Bill C‑77 in the last Parliament and we will support Bill C‑10 as well.

From what I understand, my colleague is telling us that having more transparency in the implementation of treaties would create more awful bureaucracy. A few days ago, we voted on Bill C‑228, introduced by the Bloc Québécois, which called for free trade agreements to be debated in Parliament. That bill would not have created any new bureaucracy at all. The Conservatives always like to say that they do not mind working long days in Parliament. When it was time to vote on Bill C‑228, which did not create any new bureaucracy, my colleague voted against it.

When it comes down to it, is it possible the Conservatives just have a bit of an issue with transparency?

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, today we are speaking to Bill C-10, and we understand the frustrations of indigenous communities and partners that there have not been any modern treaties completed within the past decade. That understanding is true; it is valuable, and what we want to have from the government is action towards the modern treaty, not creating extra bureaucracy and extra levels where accountability can be mistaken for results based on reports that mean nothing, that are tabled and not actioned. We need action.

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

Madam Speaker, back in my day, I was a treaty negotiator for my band. We did not sign a treaty, but I heard the same complaints for 20 years. Members of government and members of the Bloc talk about transparency, which has been alive and well in this place for the last 20 to 30 years. We have seen hundreds of reports go through this chamber on what the first nations are complaining about in terms of implementation. What we are talking about here is accountability. What is the use if the minister in charge will not make a decision or not interact with the first nation that signed one of the highest reconciliation agreements in Canada, which is protected by the Constitution?

Do we need more transparency, or do we need more accountability in terms of Bill C-10?

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I absolutely agree that we need more accountability and we need more action. We do not need more research. We do not need more reports. We need to work with indigenous partners and complete the modern treaties of today. We need accountability to make sure it is actually done.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague says that, ultimately, a commissioner would just table reports that nobody reads. What about the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, among others?

Can my colleague tell us which other commissioners who report directly to Parliament are useless and why their work is useless?

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I just want to clarify. I did not say the reports would not be read. What has been happening is that the reports are read; they are tabled; the failures are acknowledged, and then nothing is done. Creating another level of bureaucracy is not going to change what is happening right now. We need to get things done. We need accountability, full stop.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today, as always, on behalf of my neighbours and friends in Oshawa to speak about something that touches the honour of the Crown and the relationship that has shaped this country since long before Confederation. That relationship cannot be repaired with press releases, new titles or fresh layers of bureaucracy. It is rebuilt by keeping promises and by doing the work we have already agreed to do. Action, as the hon. member for Kitchener Centre said, is the key here.

For years, governments have talked about reconciliation, but talk without accountability leaves indigenous partners waiting. Bill C-10, the proposal to create a commissioner for modern treaty implementation, is being presented as a fix for decades of federal failures. In truth, it creates another office to point out the same shortcomings we have known about for years. The Auditor General has already flagged them. Indigenous leaders have already flagged them. Treaty partners have already flagged them. The problem is not a shortage of oversight; the problem is a shortage of execution.

Today I want to speak clearly about where treaty implementation stands in this country, what modern treaties actually are and why I do not believe another multi-million dollar bureaucracy will help move us closer to honouring the commitments that have already been made. Modern treaties are comprehensive land claims agreements that clarify land, resources and governance, as well as constitutional rights. Many include self-government provisions. Some stand alone as self-government agreements. They are enforceable and binding. Their purpose is to allow indigenous nations to move beyond the paternalism of the Indian Act and toward true self-determination.

Understanding this matters because implementation is not about creating new oversight offices. It is about ensuring departments respect the authority and commitments already set out in law. We saw this with the Whitecap Dakota self-government agreement that passed with Conservative support in 2023. It is a step forward but not a full modern treaty. There is still work to be done, and that work has nothing to do with the absence of a commissioner and everything to do with the departments not following through. How would a commissioner suddenly fix what ministers have failed to do for years? Ministers already have the ability to demand results, and departments already have responsibilities.

I believe what has been missing is leadership and consequences. We have historical proof. We know progress is possible. Under Prime Minister Harper, five modern treaties were completed in six years. Under the Liberal government, after more than a decade in power, not a single modern treaty has been completed. Currently, 70 indigenous groups are negotiating with the federal government and nothing has been finalized. That is not an oversight failure. That is a failure in leadership.

The government claims Bill C-10 is needed to identify gaps, but we already have decades of reports spelling out those gaps. The Auditor General has produced major audits on treaty implementation, land entitlements, governance barriers and negotiation processes. Many recommendations are still sitting untouched. If the government has ignored the Auditor General's findings for almost 20 years, why would a new commissioner suddenly change anything? Departments do not fail because no one is watching. They fail because there are no consequences when they do.

This is not the first time the Liberals have tried to fix failure by creating more bureaucracy. Between 2015 and 2017, they opened the modern treaty implementation office, the assessment of modern treaty implications office, the modern treaty management environment, the deputy ministers' oversight committee, the reconciliation secretariat and a performance framework. There are six separate entities and not a single modern treaty has been completed. Now they want a seventh office, one with no enforcement power and no ability to hold ministers accountable.

Meanwhile, communities continue to face real challenges. Housing shortages remain severe, water systems remain unsafe and policing is still not recognized as an essential service despite years of promises. Economic development is slowed by federal bottlenecks. Climate impacts disproportionately affect indigenous communities that have been calling for action for years. All these issues are rooted in operational failures, not oversight failures. No commissioner will build a home, repair a water plant or hire police officers. What is missing is political will and departmental discipline.

We cannot overlook the federal failures in procurement and contracting that have hurt indigenous communities. We have seen firms falsely claim indigenous identity in order to win contracts. We have seen millions wasted on programs that produce very little. Do members remember ArriveCAN? It alone is a reminder of how mismanagement can drain not only public trust but also public resources. A commissioner cannot stop fraud or fix broken procurement. Only proper internal controls, transparency, consequences and accountability can do that.

Across the country, indigenous leaders are asking for reliable partnerships and predictable implementation, not more Ottawa-centric offices. They want fiscal arrangements that are clear, timely and fair. They want departments to stop shuffling responsibilities among each other, leaving treaty partners caught in the middle. They want the authority in their agreements respected, not second-guessed.

This is why accountability must be political, not symbolic. If a department ignores a treaty commitment, its minister should answer for it. If a treaty obligation is delayed, the officials responsible should be held accountable. A commissioner cannot do that. Only leadership can. Indigenous partners should have a direct role in holding departments accountable instead of waiting for another report confirming what they already know.

Conservatives support modern treaties. We support indigenous self-government. We support moving beyond the Indian Act and strengthening nation-to-nation relationships. However, we do not support the idea that accountability can be outsourced to yet another office. Reconciliation is not achieved by hiring more bureaucrats. It is achieved by honouring the commitments we have already made, enforcing obligations and delivering measurable results.

Bill C-10 offers the appearance of accountability but not the substance of it, and that seems to be a recurring theme in the 45th Parliament. We have the appearance of accountability but not the substance of it. We have the appearance of action but not the substance of it. We have the appearance of deals, but these are just MOUs. It is a recurring theme, and this legislation continues with that theme.

The honour of the Crown is not restored by expanding government. It is restored by fulfilling promises that already exist in law. The bill would not make departments work harder. It would not increase ministerial responsibility. It would not enforce treaty obligations. What Canada needs is leadership, execution and real partnership with indigenous governments, not another office monitoring the inaction of others.

Let us do the work of implementing the treaties we already have instead of inventing new bureaucracies to explain why the work has not been done. We need promises kept, not paperwork created. That is what reconciliation requires.

[Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba, Liberal, Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I heard my colleague listing the treaties earlier. However, she forgot to mention that we are the first government to establish a national day of remembrance for first nations. That is a powerful gesture that we made to start reconciliation off on the right foot. We wanted to establish a day on which to think about how we can move forward together.

What does she think about this day that we established as a government?

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure I completely understand the question. I believe it was implied that the Liberal government is the first to speak with first nations, which does not make much sense to me. Perhaps I did not understand the question.

I will reiterate that we either keep our promises or do not. There are promises and commitments that we have made. Adding another layer of bureaucracy will simply add paperwork rather than keep promises, as we are meant to do.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, let us suppose that what my colleague is saying is true, that the government lacks leadership, that it has not implemented or signed enough treaties and that it has not made enough progress. That may be true.

That said, I am having a hard time following the logic of the member's argument because the government is saying that it wants to have oversight. It wants to have a commissioner with clear standards. It wants to implement the United Nations declaration, to have road maps and to improve relationships.

How is it a bad thing to have a commissioner who will accomplish those tasks? Incidentally, it is somewhat distasteful to compare a commissioner to ArriveCan. That is going a bit far. I get the impression that all passing the bill will do is ensure constant government oversight.

I do not understand how the government is failing to show leadership by having a commissioner with a clearly defined role and mandate. I would like someone to explain that to me.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I understand the member's point of view. I guess the Liberals are admitting that they cannot do the job unless a commissioner tells them what they are doing wrong or right. They clearly have trouble implementing and making commitments, and following through on ones we have already made. As I said before, promises were made. Let us keep those promises.

Clearly, the legislation is an admission of guilt. The government cannot keep promises unless an outside body forces it to.

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

Madam Speaker, I am listening to the debate. The government and our colleagues down the way want more oversight. Speaking as an aboriginal leader, especially regarding the Indian Act, I think there is already a ton of oversight. There are countless committees.

The insult here is that first nations have signed the highest agreement in the Canadian Constitution, yet they are being afforded a different type of disrespect. They are not getting the full partnership the treaty promised. What is outlined in every one of the chapters and provisions is what should be implemented as a partnership. Now we are talking about adding another oversight committee.

Can my colleague talk about what it really means when we say, “Let us hold the minister responsible for implementing a treaty”?

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think it is just that: We have to hold the minister responsible for implementing a treaty. We already have the commitments and agreements. Another body having to make sure it happens is redundant if the ministers responsible are doing their jobs.

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

Madam Speaker, listening to my colleague, one would think that the positions of the various independent officers and commissioners of Parliament were useless. The fact is, they provide important oversight that strengthens accountability and promotes transparency.

There are several commissioners, including the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner, the Commissioner of Official Languages and so on. Does she consider all these commissioners and their roles to be useless and purely bureaucratic? I would like her to elaborate on that because I see them as important offices that help us carry out our functions as members of Parliament and help ensure government accountability.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pretty sure we only have one Privacy Commissioner. We have one oversight for that and one oversight for the others.

Let us remember that, between 2015 and 2017, the Liberal government opened six oversight bodies: the modern treaty implementation office, the assessment of modern treaty implications office, the modern treaty management environment, and on and on it—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Now we have to go to another speaker.

Resuming debate, the hon. Minister of Indigenous Services.

[Mandy Gull-Masty, Liberal, Minister of Indigenous Services]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here today.

[Member spoke in Cree and provided the following translation:]

Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that Canada's Parliament is located on the unceded and unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-10, which creates a new independent officer of Parliament, specifically the commissioner for modern treaty implementation.

Modern treaties are not symbolic documents; they are legally binding agreements that affirm indigenous rights, support self-government and provide frameworks for economic development, environmental stewardship and cultural revitalization. Modern treaties often take time, in some places generations, to negotiate. They are among the most complex agreements our government undertakes, reflecting the rights, priorities and aspirations of indigenous peoples and Canadians alike. By their very nature, modern treaties and their implementation are non-partisan. Upholding these constitutional commitments is a shared responsibility across all parties and is one that transcends political cycles in governments.

For far too long, the implementation of modern treaties in our country has been challenging. Modern treaty partners have repeatedly raised concerns about delays, challenges in coordination, and insufficient oversight by federal departments and agencies with respect to living up to their legal duties and obligations.

The bill has come at the request of the nations themselves, which wish to work closely with Parliament and to be able to report to it. While federal departments and ministers are there to honour the relationship and work with them, we want to ensure that modern treaties are treated with the respect and the approach that are clearly outlined in the documents themselves.

Calls from indigenous partners have been echoed in reports from the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, the Land Claims Agreements Coalition and the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples. Creating the position of commissioner for modern treaty implementation responds directly to these calls.

The bill before Parliament reflects decades of advocacy by indigenous partners regarding modern treaties and collaborative efforts.

At its core, Bill C-10 would establish an independent commissioner for modern treaty implementation. The commissioner would answer to Parliament, the table that the partners have asked to report to and work with. Not even the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, a cabinet minister or the Prime Minister could intervene. This structure is one that my very own nation has used successfully. As the former leader of my nation, I believe it is way beyond the scope of the structure of the government today.

Without the creation of a commissioner, we would be unable to ensure that we could rightfully uphold the relationship at the true level of Parliament at which it should be addressed. The commissioner would be independent: free from political interference and pressures. Their mandate would be enshrined in law, and their reports would be tabled in Parliament for transparency, as well as for enhanced public scrutiny.

The commissioner's role would also be pivotal and fundamental in ensuring culture-specific auditing processes that would supplement the structures that exist at this moment. The commissioner would be empowered to conduct reviews and performance audits of federal departments and agencies to assess how effectively they are meeting modern treaty agreements. This would be a supplemental process that does not exist today.

The recognition of culture and ensuring that we are looking at the entirety, a holistic approach to what the community and the nation are as partners, is a critical step in respecting modern land claims.

The commissioner will be appointed for a seven-year term with the possibility of being reappointed for one additional term. Such a long but limited cycle ensures both independence and continuity, and will allow the commissioner to exercise the oversight role free from political influence.

The position would be filled by someone who has deep expertise and knowledge of modern treaties. It would be a unique construct to make sure the commissioner has the credibility and understanding to provide consistent, expert and independent oversight over successive governments. That person would be selected in close consultation and partnership with modern treaty partners.

This does not duplicate the Auditor General's work. The commissioner's role is complementary but distinct, based on an approach that respects the culture and identity of the nation and the partner.

While the Auditor General provides broad oversight of government spending, the commissioner's mandate would be exclusive to federal modern treaty implementation activities. The commissioner would bring specialized expertise, cultural understanding and a sustained focus on Canada's constitutional commitments to indigenous partners.

The commissioner would have the flexibility to conduct audits and systemic reviews that are tools designed to identify recurring issues and improve how departments work together to enhance implementation of modern treaties. They would also focus on systemic barriers and on long-term solutions that would make the commissioner's role unique in Canada's oversight landscape, with the approach of being based in culture and the understanding of the identity of the partner. This is not reflected in today's government structure.

I wish to respectfully address my colleagues who spoke earlier today who see this as an additional duplication or layer of process. It is not; it is one that would shine the light on the importance of culture and identity for claims holders. For credibility, the commissioner would have to have expert knowledge in modern land claims and would be required to consult and engage directly with treaty partners throughout the review processes. Partners would have the opportunity to comment on preliminary findings, and their written views would be included in reports tabled to Parliament so both federal responses and indigenous perspectives would be heard. This is a critical step.

As the former leader of a modern land claim nation, I must urge my colleagues across all parties to ensure the consideration of the importance of the commissioner's role. Creating space so decisions, reflections and the verification of implementation are taken within the context of culture, language and identity is something that is needed. It is not only in the spirit of reconciliation and the approach to partnership; it is something that has been requested from us by our partners.

If we are to truly respect our commitment to modern land claims and treaties, we must undertake this pivotal next step.

Bill C‑10 creates the position of a commissioner for modern treaty implementation. It will also give indigenous partners a role in the negotiation process for new modern treaties and the assurance that the government's commitments will be honoured.

They will know that the commissioner would be looking to ensure that the Government of Canada not only meets its commitments but also enhances working relationships with the understanding and respect of the cultural context.

I want to ensure that rights and the rights of the future children and grandchildren of the land claims are respected and are supported in future negotiations. True partnership is when we ensure that we invite the partner to work directly with government and report to Parliament. Anything less is not honouring the commitment of what we have signed with them.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for her experience with indigenous negotiations, land claims and treaty negotiations.

I think the question on this side of the House is not about the purpose of the commissioner but about the reality of the minister's not being held responsible for not implementing a treaty. Everything in a treaty has provisions in terms of what the Crown should be doing to be an equal treaty partner. Even the bill we are talking about today says nothing that would compel the minister to honour a constitutionally protected, documented treaty.

Is there any type of language that says that the government would actually uphold the honour of the Crown in terms of implementing treaties that have been in existence for the last 30 or 40 years?

[Mandy Gull-Masty, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge that the minister would still have the obligation to respond to the partnership. This would not be done away with. The supplementation of a commissioner's being put into place is with regard to the reporting. It is the oversight. It is to ensure that the verification and the validity of the position of the partner would also be tabled to Parliament.

In essence, I believe that it would ensure the strengthening of findings, in terms of the implementation process of the claim. It would be supplementary to the process. I want to ensure that when we are developing the protocol, it is understood by the partner that while they would continue to work with the minister and the federal department, the commissioner would be there to further enhance accountability should there be a gap or a concern for discretion or a pathway forward.

It is something I think would further enhance accountability directly to Parliament. This is what our partners are looking for.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister, who I am sure will be pleased to know that I grew up in her riding.

I would like to know how the government will ensure that the role of commissioner is not politicized. I will give the example of another independent officer of Parliament, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is appointed for seven years through a process similar to the one in Bill C-10. When the Minister of Finance and National Revenue became unhappy with the PBO's findings, he started undermining the PBO's credibility in the media and in committee saying that his was just one of many opinions. That is not to mention what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue went so far as to do.

We know that, after seven years, the government did not replace the PBO by consulting with the other parties. It replaced the PBO temporarily and is looking for a new one, without any consent from the other parties. It is politicizing the role of an independent officer, and the appointment process for this commissioner seems remarkably similar to the process for appointing the PBO.

How can the minister assure us that the government will not politicize the appointment of commissioners like it is trying to do right now with the PBO?

[Mandy Gull-Masty, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I also grew up in the riding. It is a treaty territory. The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement is recognized as the first modern treaty.

I think that this process reinforces partnership because I come from a nation that has been submitting reports directly to Parliament, not just to an officer of Parliament, for 50 years. We ourselves chose two commissioners who spoke to Parliament on our behalf.

Philip Awashish, Bill Namagoose and all the people on the Cree-Naskapi Commission truly demonstrated that, when nations have independence and the ability to report to Parliament, they get to define the process, the relationship and the approach to the work. That is why I strongly support Bill C-10.

My nation has been doing this work for 50 years. I am proud to say that this is an exercise based on respect for our culture, our identity and our language. Our reports are prepared in the Cree language and presented to several levels of government, not just Parliament. This gives us the opportunity to introduce ourselves and explain what the agreement is and how we work with the different levels of government.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-10, an act regarding modern treaty implementation. At the outset, I want to say I am very proud to represent the Treaty No. 6 first nations in Alberta, including the Enoch Cree Nation and the Paul First Nation, as well as the area of the Michel First Nation, which remains the only first nation that was forcibly and involuntarily enfranchised in 1958. It remains a very sensitive issue to this day. It is still seeking a return to its previous status.

For the last decade, the Liberal government has spoken about reconciliation, yet reconciliation without accountability remains a broken promise. This new office of the modern treaty commissioner would tell us nothing that the Office of the Auditor General and many indigenous leaders across the country have not already told us: that the government continues to fail and that outcomes for indigenous people continue to be poor. The proposal of a new office of the treaty commissioner is presented as progress by the government but would not address the root cause of the problem. It would only go to further creating bureaucracy and bloating a government that continues to fail indigenous peoples.

For the past decade, we have heard repeatedly from the Auditor General and indigenous peoples about where the government is failing to live up to its commitments to first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples. Repeated findings by the Auditor General remain unimplemented by the government. Just this past October, the Auditor General report on programs for first nations stated that, overall, “Despite an 84% increase in the department’s spending on programs since the 2019–20 fiscal year, significant challenges remained in improving services and program outcomes for First Nations communities.” It went from $13 billion to $24 billion. Accountability for this inaction rests with the cabinet and the government and should not be delegated to another layer of bureaucracy.

I want to talk about what a modern-day treaty is. A modern-day treaty is a comprehensive land claims agreement negotiated between a first nation, Métis or Inuit group and the Crown. In this case, the Crown is the federal government and, in some cases, provincial governments. Modern treaties are aimed at resolving long-standing disputes related to land ownership, resource rights and governance in a defined territory. Therefore, modern-day treaties can include land and resource provisions, financial compensation, and/or governance and decision-making authority. Once they are implemented, modern-day treaties are enforceable under federal law, and modern-day treaties can replace or clarify indigenous rights under historic treaties.

A self-government treaty is an agreement that recognizes and establishes an indigenous government. These agreements grant indigenous groups the authority to make laws in specific areas, including education, health care, culture and local services. The aim is to give more authority and administrative powers to indigenous peoples. These self-government treaties may be part of a modern-day treaty, or they may stand alone. I want to be clear that Conservatives support modern-day treaties. In fact, Conservatives were responsible for negotiating a number of modern-day treaties when we were in government. However, Conservatives do not support the assumption that increasing the size of bureaucracy and spending can compensate for the failures of the Liberal government.

Under former prime minister Stephen Harper, the previous Conservative government signed five modern-day treaties in six years. That is a good record the government should take some lessons from. The five modern-day treaties include the Tłı̨chǫ Land Claims and Self-Government Agreement, which happened 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 over a decade in power, despite all the rhetoric, the Liberal government has not negotiated a single modern-day treaty.

The previous prime minister began his tenure by stating that there was no relationship more important to him and to Canada than the ones with first nations, Métis and Inuit people, and yet the former prime minister's rhetoric and the actions of his government did not live up to that promise. Across the country, basic services and community safety in indigenous communities remain far below our national standards. Indigenous police continue to be underfunded. Housing conditions remain unacceptable. Enoch Cree Nation, a relatively well-off first nation right next to a major metropolitan area, cannot even get funding for sewage from the federal government.

We also know there is no lack of documented evidence and reports of where the government has failed. The Auditor General has documented those failures repeatedly and outlined specific ways to address them, yet the government has not acted on them.

I would ask the House if the creation of a new modern-day treaty commissioner would require the government to actually act on the obligations it makes to indigenous communities, as my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley asked. There is nothing in the bill that would require that. If the government is not implementing the recommendations of the Auditor General, what would be any different with a new treaty commissioner?

The October 2025 Auditor General report states:

During our 2021 audit, on November 1, 2020, 60 long-term drinking water advisories were in effect in First Nations communities, despite federal commitments to eliminate them by that year. As of April 1, 2025, there were 35 such advisories.

Nine of these advisories had been in effect “for a decade or longer.”

...we found that the department took initial actions to address several of our recommendations on access to primary health care services by completing studies and assessments, but did not follow through on those steps to improve services.

...some Indigenous Services Canada programs to support First Nations communities do not have clearly defined service levels. For instance, the department has defined service levels for First Nations communities with only 1 province for evacuations during emergencies, and it has not defined service levels for comparable access to health care.

Creating a new bureaucracy in the form of a commissioner would not build any more houses. It would not hire any more indigenous police officers, and it would not ensure clean drinking water. Reconciliation needs to be measured by results, and ministers and their departments should be focused on meeting their existing obligations under treaties and under our Constitution, rather than shirking off those responsibilities to a new office that would table reports that would go on to be further ignored by the government.

One area of particular concern for me, and I have raised this in the House before, is the government's failure to adequately fund services for at-risk first nations children. Jordan's principle is intended to fund services for these children. It exists to ensure that no child is caught in delays, conflict or jurisdictional confusion, and it is rooted in a principle that we can all agree on: that care for children, not jurisdictional squabbles, should come first.

I want to read part of a letter I received from Nicole Callihoo. She is the education director of Paul First Nation in my riding. Here are some excerpts from the letter: “We are writing today with a heavy heart and a deep sense of urgency. Despite submitting full Jordan’s Principle applications and following every step as required, our school has not received the funding necessary to continue services for our students. We are now in the fourth month of the school year, and these delays contradict both the spirit and the purpose of Jordan’s Principle.

“In the true way of our ancestors, we did not wait for approvals before taking care of our children. We honoured their needs and began services immediately so they would not experience further hardship or delay. These supports have brought powerful changes. Students who were once quiet and unsure have begun to speak. Those who carried worry and heaviness have started to open their hearts. They look forward to their sessions. Families have shared that they notice new calmness, confidence, and connection in their children. These are not small steps—they are the beginnings of healing.

“However, because the funding [from the government] remains outstanding, we now face the painful reality of stopping these services. Ending supports after children have finally begun to trust and feel safe goes against our cultural teachings and against everything Jordan’s Principle stands for. Interrupting care will undo progress, break relationships, and cause harm that could have been prevented. This type of disruption echoes the very history that Jordan’s Principle was created to stop.”

I wanted to share that story because it is an example of how the government is already failing to stand up for first nations communities in my riding. Vulnerable indigenous children, whom the courts decided the federal government would have a responsibility to support, have had their funding from the government cut when they go to school off-reserve. I can tell the House that in communities like mine and communities across the country where there is not a comprehensive K-to-12 education system on-reserve, indigenous students have to go off-reserve to go to high school or junior high. When they do that, when children suffer from impediments like those, Jordan's principle should be there to provide funding for them. The government cut that funding, and it has been devastating for those families.

We do not need a commissioner to tell us the government is failing. We are here talking about it in the House right now. We need action to support those families that are being hurt by the government's cuts related to Jordan's principle. We need real action to support all of those first nations that are facing boil water advisories and facing a government that has been continually breaking its word with first nations. That is why we are going to stand up here and represent them and fight for them.

[Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba, Liberal, Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's remarks. All he did was praise the accomplishments of his former government, the government of Mr. Harper, whom we can name here and whom he mentioned in passing.

I did not hear him offer any solutions. All he said was that this bill would create bureaucracy, that it would create many issues. I would like to know what solutions he proposes so that first nations can have a concrete tool for implementing their declaration while limiting the creation of new administrative structures.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, we talked about these solutions in the last election campaign. We wanted to give more powers to first nations to take control over their resource development and allow them to collect the revenues needed so that they could build up their own nations. They could build up local services. That is not to say we want the government to take a step back. The government could lean in, together with those increased resources for those first nations so they could be empowered to support their citizens.

Enoch Cree Nation in my community is a great success story, with the River Cree Resort and Casino. It has had oil and gas development and agricultural development. When first nations are empowered to develop their own resources, we see prosperity created on first nations, and we need government to lean into that as well.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is quite right when he says that the government often fails first nations.

I represent the Mohawk community of Kanesatake in the House. I know that there have been problems with water pollution caused by criminal groups, among others. I have been hounding the government about this for years, but I cannot even get a call back. The government has shown real indifference to this issue.

My colleague thinks that the government lacks leadership when it comes to treaty implementation. Still, does he not think that having a commissioner who could serve as a sort of liaison with first nations communities would be a better way to keep a closer eye on the government, particularly a government that does so little? Would it not ultimately be an accountability tool that would allow us parliamentarians, as well as first nations themselves, to keep an eye on the government?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am familiar with the first nation community in the member's riding. My ancestors came to this country with the Mohawk peoples in 1783, fleeing the United States at the time. It is absolutely unacceptable that first nations continue to face these challenges in a country as wealthy as Canada. What we are seeing with issues like talking about creating a new commissioner is a government that is talking about window dressing, when what we really need to be talking about are tangible investments to make life better for indigenous peoples in this country. It is performative, and what we really need is accountability.

That is why I am very proud, as a member of Parliament who represents communities in the Treaty No. 6 area, to stand up in the House and fight for them and hold the government accountable, to ensure it takes action to live up to its promises.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon South, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Parkland for mentioning Jordan's principle. Half of our school divisions in the province of Saskatchewan are well behind in funding from the federal government, and that has caused a lot of stress around the board tables. In fact, many school divisions have actually had to make cuts in educational assistants because they had planned ahead of time and then all of a sudden the cheque from the federal government did not come to give the support.

I just want to thank the member for bringing up Jordan's principle and ask for his thoughts on the school divisions' issues with the federal government.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is a huge issue in my riding, in my hon. colleague's riding and in ridings across the country, where school divisions, which are primarily provincially funded, have been receiving support from the federal government following the court decision on Jordan's principle. That court decision stated that for at-risk indigenous youth, the federal government would be there to provide support for educational assistants and additional supports to help many of these children, who are struggling with very unique challenges, to get ahead and up to the same level.

The government members have decided to withhold funding from groups like the Parkland School Division, resulting in layoffs of over 100 educational assistants in our area. That is hurting not only indigenous children but all the children in the school district, and the federal government is squarely to blame.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to address Bill C-10 and a fundamental issue in our nation's history: the relationship between the Crown and indigenous peoples, which must be grounded in honour, trust and, most importantly, the fulfilment of promises.

This relationship demands more than words. It demands action, yet for too long under this government, we have witnessed a pattern of rhetoric outpacing results. Over the last decade, for the Canadian federal government, reconciliation has become more of a slogan than a measurable reality. Under Bill C-10, we find another example of this trend.

Bill C-10, the commissioner for modern treaty implementation act, purports to establish a new agent of Parliament to monitor, review and audit how federal departments implement modern treaties with indigenous nations. The commissioner would conduct performance audits, assess compliance with treaty obligations objectives and the honour of the Crown itself, and report the findings to Parliament after sharing drafts with relevant departments and treaty partners.

On paper this sounds reasonable. However, far more important, in practice, it likely amounts to a multi-million dollar distraction that simply duplicates existing oversight mechanisms, lacks any real enforcement power and diverts precious resources from where they are truly needed: direct implementation, infrastructure, housing, clean water and economic opportunity for indigenous people.

Let us be frank about what modern treaties represent. These are comprehensive, hard-won agreements, often comprehensive land claim settlements, often including self-government provisions, that resolve long-standing disputes over land, resources, governance and rights. They establish enforceable federal law and empower indigenous nations to exercise authorities in areas like education, health, culture and local services. They are meant to foster true partnership, self-determination and prosperity, moving indigenous communities beyond the paternalism of the Indian Act.

Conservatives have a proud record of advancing these agreements. Under former prime minister Stephen Harper, we successfully negotiated and signed five modern treaties in just six years: the Tłı̨chǫ land claims and self-government agreement, which was finalized in 2005 and 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 Délı̨nę final self-government agreement in 2015. These were not symbolic gestures. They delivered land, resources, financial settlements and governance powers that have enabled economic growth and community-led decision-making. In stark contrast, the Liberal government, now approaching 11 years in power, has signed exactly zero new modern treaties.

Seventy negotiations languish today in limbo, as they have for years. Basic commitments, such as ending long-term boil water advisories, which were, by the way, promised to be completely resolved by 2021, remain unfulfilled in dozens of communities, to the detriment of these communities. Housing shortages persist. Policing is under-resourced in many areas, and climate vulnerabilities hit indigenous nations hardest. As for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, many still gather dust.

The Auditor General, a commissioner who already has powers to document all of these issues, has extensively documented these failures, repeatedly, over the last 11 years. There have been more than 20 reports that have highlighted chronic issues: inconsistent departmental interpretations of treaty terms; delayed or incomplete fiscal transfers; fragmented responsibilities across Indigenous Services Canada, Crown-Indigenous Relations, Justice Canada and the Treasury Board; and most damningly, a complete absence of consequences when obligations are ignored.

Key audits include the 2013 comprehensive review of modern treaty implementation, the 2016 report on the Labrador-Inuit claims agreement and follow-ups in subsequent years showing little meaningful progress on any issue by the Liberal government. Even as recently as 2005, the Auditor General's follow-up on first nations' programs underscored ongoing implementation gaps and unsatisfactory actions on prior recommendations, yet the government responds not with decisive leadership but with more bureaucracy, as we find in the bill before us.

In this bill, we find another commissioner, another office, another $10.6 million over four years with ongoing annual millions of funding that could instead be used to fund homes, water systems or job-creating projects. The commissioner in this bill would review, monitor, assess, evaluate and report, but those are words that the Auditor General's mandate already has.

Unlike the Auditor General, this new role offers no binding recommendations, no penalties for non-compliance and no ability to compel departmental action. Reports under the bill would filter through the minister before Parliament sees them, how convenient, risking dilution or delay. Parliament itself has no power to initiate audits under this new recommendation. This is not robust accountability. It is simply performative oversight designed to deflect criticism from the federal Liberal government's lack of action.

Indigenous leaders and treaty partners deserve better than more endless reports. They deserve results. The Supreme Court's 2024 Restoule decision on the Robinson treaties reminds us what happens when the Crown fails its duties for generations: breaches of trust, prolonged litigation and eroded confidence. We cannot afford to repeat that cycle with modern treaties.

True reconciliation requires executive responsibility, not administrative expansion. Departments must prioritize treaty fulfilment in budgets and operations. Ministers must face consequences for lapses through performance evaluations, public scrutiny or even personnel changes when the failures are systemic. Indigenous governments should have direct funded channels to flag issues and demand response without bureaucratic intermediaries, as is outlined in this bill.

There are many other ways that the government could do better on all of these fronts. For example, it could enforce existing obligations directly by tying ministerial and deputy ministerial performance reviews explicitly to treaty compliance metrics, ensuring personal accountability for delays or breaches. The government could strengthen the Auditor General's monetary capacity by allocating dedicated and highly structured resources within the OAG for specialized recurring modern treaty audits with faster follow-up mechanisms and mandatory parliamentary briefings. It could impose strict response timelines that would mandate that departments must provide detailed action plans and progress updates within 90 days of any Auditor General finding or treaty partner complaint.

The government could accelerate stalled negotiations by setting clear timelines and processes for concluding the 70 ongoing talks, redirecting funds from redundant offices to bolster negotiation teams and support direct implementation. It could redirect the proposed costs associated with this bill towards achieving tangible priorities, including housing construction, clean water infrastructure, policing enhancements and economic development in treaty territories. The government could better empower indigenous-led oversight mechanisms by supporting direct oversight protocols that allow modern treaty partners to trigger departmental reviews and enforce transparency with new federal layers. It could advance economic reconciliation by fast-tracking resource partnerships, revenue sharing and development projects under existing treaties to generate jobs, self-sufficiency and community wealth.

The government could consolidate duplicative entities, instead of creating more of them, by merging or eliminating overlapping post-2015 offices into a single streamlined accountability framework with real, actual enforcement authority. It could enhance dispute resolution tools to better ensure expedited access to mediation, arbitration or tribunals in treaty disputes, reducing costly court battles. The government could shift to outcome-based metrics by replacing vague reporting with clear, public key performance indicators, such as homes completed, water advisories lifted and governance powers exercised. These are all things that would demonstrate visible progress as opposed to another bureaucracy.

Reconciliation is not measured by the number of offices in Ottawa or the volumes of reports produced. It should be measured by safe homes built, clean water flowing, strong policing in communities, thriving economies and the full honouring of nation-to-nation promises. Conservatives stand firmly for indigenous economic empowerment and accountability that delivers results, not more red tape.

We will not support Bill C-10 in its current form because it distracts from leadership failures and perpetuates delay. Let us instead demand action, enforce what already exists, hold people accountable and deliver for indigenous persons, who have waited long enough.

[William Stevenson, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, as a member of INAN, the indigenous and northern affairs committee, I welcome a lot of the member's suggestions because the criticism we get from the government is that we do not have suggestions. The member has touched upon a lot of the issues, specifically one that has hit my riding.

Does the member think they could work with what they have available now, or does the process need to change? In my riding, the Exshaw School was going to have to close because it was reliant on the neighbouring Stoney nation, which had all its kids there, and the government was not paying for the school. The school was about to close until the eleventh hour.

Does the member think it is just that the Liberals do not get things done, or do they need to change the process entirely?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague would know from hearing testimony from indigenous persons at his committee that the reality is that when there are critical issues on the ground or ongoing generational issues, what often happens is that they get raised and then they go into this black box ether of multidepartmental malaise and event horizon that results in nothing. It results in more reports and more obfuscation, and that is not how we are going to achieve reconciliation in Canada.

Again, I tried to put forward concrete recommendations for the government to move away from more bureaucracy, more paternalism and more complaints, ending up in an endless morass of bureaucracy, and toward real key performance indicator-based outcomes that we can measure, like more schools built and boil water advisories lifted. This is where we need to go, and it is very disappointing to see yet another bureaucracy put in place as opposed to talking about actual outcomes.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Calgary Nose Hill for sharing her perspective with us, although it is not one that I share. The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C‑10. We think it is a good idea to have a commissioner.

However, if the bill is passed and a commissioner is appointed, I am concerned about the appointment process. Earlier, I gave the example of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is also appointed for seven years, who is independent of Parliament, and whose appointment—which is supposed to be a consensus decision—is becoming politicized. We know that the Minister of Finance has done everything possible to undermine his credibility and that the Liberals may be in the process of choosing the new Parliamentary Budget Officer without consulting the other parties. I wonder what my colleague thinks about commissioners being appointed by the Governor in Council, which basically means by the Prime Minister.

Does my colleague not think that, if the bill is passed, we should perhaps try out a new method and have an appointment process that directly involves Parliament?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I also have concerns about the politicization of the Parliamentary Budget Officer appointment. I think Parliament should have more influence and oversight in that appointment process. However, at the same time, the member also gave the exact argument for why colleagues in this place should not be supporting this bill. A better option to have more oversight would be to have fenced, allocated resources within the existing scope of the Auditor General's office, because it has teeth behind its processes.

I believe, if Bill C-10 passes, indigenous persons are going to experience more delays, more obfuscations and more politicization, as opposed to achieving actual results. We should be talking about lifted boil water advisories, economic opportunities and resource partnership development. That is where we need to be driving, and that is what we should be talking about here.

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

Madam Speaker, it is very good this morning to hear the comments from the members opposite and their new-found respect for treaties and also for reconciliation.

I am just wondering how the member opposite would reconcile that with the comments from her leader that the federal government should override indigenous rights in order to get pipelines built, regardless of the objection of those rights holders.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, first of all, the Leader of the Opposition sat in a government that successfully negotiated and finalized six modern-day treaties. My colleague opposite sits in a government that has negotiated zero treaties over 11 years. The proof is in the pudding.

Second of all, the Prime Minister, the leader of the member's party, has claimed that he wants to build pipelines, yet he cannot point to a shovel in the ground. I think what is going to happen is that the Liberals' voter coalition is rapidly going to fall apart because they do not have the chops to do exactly what my colleague opposite said, which is advance resource development processes while—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

We are out of time and need to resume debate.

The hon. member for Haldimand—Norfolk.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-10, an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation.

At its core, the bill responds to long-standing concerns raised by indigenous communities about the need for greater federal accountability in implementing modern treaties and agreements. These treaties are essentially comprehensive land claims agreements that are negotiated between first nations, Inuit and Métis groups and the Crown to resolve long-standing disputes in defined territories.

I want to recognize that indigenous communities have long asked for a mechanism to ensure that Canada fulfills its promises under these treaties. However, the way the bill seeks to achieve that goal raises important concerns about accountability, clarity and the impact on existing property rights.

First, many of the functions the commissioner would perform are already done within the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations. By codifying them in law and creating a new office, we risk duplicating roles, blurring the lines of authority and diffusing ministerial responsibility.

Despite appearances, the commissioner for modern treaties implementation would not be an officer of Parliament like the Auditor General or the Ethics Commissioner, who are appointed by and report directly to Parliament itself. They are independent of government and do not exist to hold the executive, the Prime Minister and the cabinet to account.

However, under Bill C-10, the commissioner would be appointed by cabinet, via the Governor in Council, on the advice of the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations. This means the commissioner would sit within the executive branch, the Prime Minister's cabinet, and not the legislative branch. While the commissioner would table reports in Parliament, they would answer to the very government they are meant to monitor. Parliament could not direct them, remove them or review their work in any substantive way. This is a very serious oversight gap.

We have seen this problem before. The Canada Infrastructure Bank was designed with similar intentions: to be at arm's length, efficient and transparent. Instead, it became a costly entity with limited parliamentary scrutiny, spending billions while accountability remained murky. This new proposed office, with $10.6 million over four years, risks following the same path.

I also note that no external oversight mechanisms are built into Bill C-10, which is a very big omission. There would be no independent review body overseeing the commissioner. There would be no performance audit or sunset clause. There would be no clear consequences for failing to act on findings. There would be no mandatory parliamentary committee review at fixed intervals.

These omissions of accountability are not abstract. They would have real-world consequences, particularly when it comes to land and resource rights. In provinces such as Alberta and British Colombia, people are, right now, experiencing the practical impacts of uncertainty due to overlapping land rights. Landowners with fee simple title, which is the form of title most Canadians own their home under, are worried. These landowners believed their property rights were secure, but they are discovering that they may need to consult indigenous groups before doing things like building a dock, harvesting timber or even walking through nearby forested areas.

The Cowichan Tribes v. Canada decision has shown that even the long-held title ownership Canadians have in their homes and lands does not always confer absolute control. This has created a great deal of uncertainty for landowners, lenders and the real estate market. As treaty rights continue to expand across the country, this decision would continue to touch more communities, municipalities and resource-rich regions across Canada.

As these modern treaties are implemented, we must also prepare Canadians for the changes that will follow. This is why the roles, powers and accountability mechanisms of the commissioner must be clearly defined, which is something that is not present in the bill and that the bill fails to do. We do not need a new layer of bureaucracy with undefined reach into matters that affect both indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians. It is crucial that the government communicate all policies and legal shifts openly and honestly with Canadians. Canadians deserve to understand not only the rights being affirmed for indigenous communities but also their own rights. Canadians also need to understand how their rights, including property rights and resource rights, may be affected.

This is about transparency and fairness. People cannot respect or adapt to what has been hidden from them. If we fail to prepare the public and if these developments arise suddenly or unevenly, we risk confusion, frustration and unnecessary division. For years, the government has talked about reconciliation, but without accountability and without clarity, reconciliation will never be achieved. The path ahead must therefore include national education that explains how treaty rights and private ownership rights coexist under Canadian law and how governments intend to manage those intersectionalities.

Canadians must not be left to learn through conflict or court cases. They must be included through dialogue, communication and truth. The relationship between Canada and indigenous peoples must be built on trust, integrity and transparency. Trust is not created by removing ministerial responsibility or by insulating bureaucracies from scrutiny. We cannot allow the new commissioner to become a parallel system of governance funded by taxpayers, shielded from oversight and empowered to make decisions that could change the relationship with Canada's indigenous peoples, property rights in Canada and the economic stability of the country without direct accountability.

There is a basic irony here in the government creating a treaty commissioner who could not be overlooked. At its core, the implementation of treaties is the responsibility of cabinet ministers. These are elected officials who are accountable to Parliament and to Canadians, and whose role is to ensure that government programs and policies uphold the law and meet Canada's obligations. Bill C-10 would create a new, cabinet-appointed office to audit and monitor federal departments, effectively outsourcing a core ministerial responsibility.

I am not kidding. The government is creating an office to monitor whether it does the very job taxpayers elected it to do. Taxpayers pay ministers close to $350,000 every year, yet the ministers have the audacity to outsource their responsibility to commissioners they appoint. The Liberal government is taking outsourcing, obviously, to another level. This is simply circular accountability, where ministers evade ownership of the consequences of their decisions. This so-called independent commissioner would likely become a shield for government, allowing ministers to deflect responsibility and accountability from treaty implementation and land rights. The proposed arrangement raises some fundamental questions. If a minister's duty is to ensure compliance, why is an independent office needed to check that they are doing their job?

In short, and in closing, while the spirit of the bill aims to improve accountability and transparency, it actually risks the opposite by allowing ministers to abdicate their duty to Parliament and hide behind the commissioners. This is why any discussion of oversight must focus on holding ministers directly accountable. We must ensure the commissioner's work supports, rather than substitutes, democracy and responsibility.

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

Madam Speaker, there were a lot of interesting points made by the member opposite. In particular, I take her point about property rights and economic stability.

She noted, at the beginning of her comments, that the bill on the commissioner for modern treaties was built and developed with the support of, and in consultation with, indigenous rights holders and indigenous communities across Canada.

I wonder how she would respond to them, in that the bill would implement specifically what they have been asking for.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, the important issue is one of reconciliation. If we implement a system that blocks accountability and allows the ministers to deflect responsibility, it would not lead to reconciliation.

It is very important that, with Bill C-10, people recognize that this system would ensure that the minister would appoint a commissioner, and that the commissioner would then be accountable to the same minister who appointed them. This would deflect the responsibility of the cabinet, which is supposed to be accountable for reconciliation in this country.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are talking about creating this position through Bill C-10, which we are debating today. We can only commend the creation of this position as an important step.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. For genuine reconciliation with indigenous peoples to occur, we must ensure that action is taken for indigenous women and girls. How many reports show that they are disproportionately affected by problems of all kinds? What does my colleague think about that?

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, there are a number of recommendations in the report that deal with the status of indigenous women. What is important for reconciliation, and for indigenous women to feel empowered, is making sure that whatever system is in place is not filled with bureaucracy but rather responds to their needs and does not deflect responsibility away from ministers.

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

Madam Speaker, in Canada, we already have one of the most senior and most powerful institutions. The Auditor General is already saying that Canada is failing at its treaty obligations. There are half a dozen oversight committees. There are aboriginal groups advocating for government to live up to its commitments under treaties. There are also the treaty provisions themselves that speak to accountability.

Would the creation of a new commissioner compel the ministers and the government to live up to treaty obligations?

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, it would absolutely not. It would not compel.

In fact, it would create another layer of bureaucracy the government could deflect its responsibilities onto. The Auditor General has an auditing mechanism already in place. The bill would infuse another layer of bureaucracy and make it even more complicated for indigenous communities to hold the government to account, because the government would then have a commissioner as a buffer whom it could blame for all its failings.

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

Madam Speaker, we are talking about the creation of a commission for modern treaty implementation, which would replace the very effective work that has been done by the Office of the Auditor General. The Auditor General is responsible for reviewing government operations for accountability, transparency and the effective use of public funds.

Does my colleague agree that this new commission would have an inferior mandate, in that it would not have to audit the effective use of public funds?

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, yes, this new position would not have to audit public funds. In fact, it would be a buffer to ministers answering for what is done with these funds.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today and speak to this legislation, Bill C-10, an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation.

This legislation is presented by the government as a path to improved indigenous relations and accountability, yet when I look closely at both the text of this legislation and the lived realities of the people I represent, I must say that sadly, the legislation will neither improve relations between the government and indigenous people nor increase accountability. I believe this bill is fundamentally misaligned with the priorities of urban indigenous communities like Saskatoon West.

Saskatoon West's population is approximately 18% indigenous, according to the 2021 census, which is a rate that is far higher than the national average. Saskatoon West is an urban riding and a community where indigenous people are teachers, business owners, nurses, parents, students, entrepreneurs, tradespeople and neighbours. They live in apartment buildings, single family homes, rental units and multi-generational households throughout our community. Indigenous people in Saskatoon need results, not more bureaucracy.

What is Bill C-10? In short, it is more bureaucracy. Bill C-10 proposes the creation of a new federal office of commissioner for modern treaty implementation. The commissioner is tasked with monitoring, reviewing and reporting on treaty implementation, but monitoring, reviewing and reporting are not solutions; they are processes and paperwork. It is another layer of bureaucracy that Ottawa can point to when asked why tangible progress has not been made.

We must ask simple questions: How will this new commissioner create jobs in Saskatoon West? How will they make housing more affordable? How will they lower the cost of food and energy for families struggling to make ends meet? The answer, quite simply, is that they will not. This legislation would do nothing to grapple with the real economic pressures facing urban indigenous residents. It would do nothing to create meaningful employment opportunities, make housing more accessible and affordable in our city or reduce the extraordinarily high cost of living that burdens all families every month.

When indigenous families in Saskatoon West tell me that they are struggling to keep up with the cost of groceries, they are not talking about treaty implementation reports; they are talking about real life and real household costs that are compounded by federal tax policies that raise the price of goods, fuel and transportation. An example is the industrial carbon tax, which has pushed up the cost of diesel, natural gas and transportation across the economy. This tax may be an abstract policy for some here in Ottawa, but for families in Saskatoon West, it translates directly into higher heating bills in the winter, higher gas prices at the pump and higher prices for everything that has to be delivered by a truck, including groceries, clothing and household goods. For indigenous seniors on fixed incomes, this means hard choices between heating their homes and buying food; for indigenous parents working minimum wage jobs or multiple part-time jobs, it means stretching every dollar just to keep a roof over their children's heads; and for indigenous youth trying to launch careers, this means fewer opportunities and more barriers.

This is not rhetoric; it is what I hear every week from constituents in Saskatoon West. What indigenous communities in urban Canada and in my riding of Saskatoon West need are policies that empower, employ and uplift them, not policies that just observe and report. They need real job creation and skills training. Indigenous youth and adults in our community deserve sustainable employment that offers a living wage.

The Conservative plan, rooted in economic growth, will remove barriers to investment, cut red tape for small businesses and help urban indigenous entrepreneurs succeed. This is the kind of approach that creates dignity and independence, not dependence on endless studies. Like many places in Canada, housing is also a crisis in Saskatoon West. Indigenous families, like all families, struggle with unaffordable rents, limited supply and skyrocketing prices. Building more homes means more supply, which means lower prices. Conservatives have long advocated for removing the federal policies that slow housing construction, cutting needless regulatory barriers and incentivizing both private and indigenous-led housing.

Conservatives support strong relationships with indigenous leaders that are rooted in accountability. If departments fail to uphold their commitments, there should be real consequences, not another memo to a bureaucratic office. If funding is promised, it should be delivered on time and in full. If jobs or housing targets are set, they should be measured independently and transparently, but with teeth, not just reports.

Indigenous residents of Saskatoon West are not interested in symbolic gestures. Like all Canadians, the indigenous people in the riding of Saskatoon West are interested in outcomes, including jobs that pay, homes that are affordable, children who are safe and futures that are bright. Bill C-10 does not deliver these outcomes; it will not reduce food costs or lower energy bills. Nowhere in this debate are Liberals talking about creating jobs that indigenous and all youth are desperate for. The Liberals are making no effort to build the homes that families need to live in housing they can afford. The government must do better, and we must do better.

I have already said that this legislation is about building bureaucracy. Ronald Reagan famously said, “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” We have seen time and again from the Liberal government that the solution to every problem is more government, another department and more layers of bureaucrats. To a hammer, everything looks like a nail. That summarizes the government. We have seen this approach repeatedly.

Starting with indigenous affairs, the Liberals split the former indigenous and northern affairs Canada department in 2017 into two new departments: Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, and Indigenous Services Canada. The stated goal was to improve service delivery and reconciliation. The real-world result was more deputy ministers, more bureaucracy and more spending, while indigenous communities continued to face housing shortages, boil water advisories, health gaps and treaty implementation failures. Indigenous Services Canada was sold as the delivery department. Years later, outcomes have not really improved, and here we are with Bill C-10. The lesson is clear: Creating a new department did not fix the problem. It added complexity.

The same pattern appears in climate and environmental policy. When the Liberals repeatedly missed their own emissions targets, they created the net-zero advisory board in 2021. This body has no authority, no enforcement power and no accountability mechanism. It exists to advise, audit and report, while Canadians pay higher costs and targets are still missed. This is the exact same model as is proposed in Bill C-10. They also replaced the environmental assessment regime with the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada in 2019. The promise was better assessments. The reality has been longer approval times, regulatory uncertainty, stalled projects, lost investment and fewer jobs. With more regulation comes less certainty and fewer results.

In housing and infrastructure, the pattern continues. The government launched Build Canada Homes and rebranded funding envelopes, but communities are still waiting years for approvals. It created the Canada Infrastructure Bank in 2017, claiming it would unlock investment and accelerate major projects. Billions were allocated, but project delivery was slow. Even the Auditor General raised serious concerns. When housing affordability spiralled out of control, the response was not to build more homes or remove gatekeepers. It was to create the federal housing advocate in 2021, an office that can issue reports and recommendations but cannot build a single home. Housing affordability continues to worsen.

Bill C-10 fits this exact pattern. Just like with Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, Indigenous Services Canada, the net-zero advisory board, the Impact Assessment Agency, Build Canada Homes, the Canada Infrastructure Bank and the federal housing advocate, the bill risks becoming another Liberal monument to process over results.

The debate we are having today is about something fundamental: the honour of the Crown, and the relationship between the federal government and indigenous people. That relationship is not built through org charts, offices or glossy annual reports, but on trust, action and delivery. Unfortunately, after nearly a decade in power, the Liberal government has demonstrated a consistent pattern. When it fails to deliver results, it creates another level of bureaucracy and calls it progress. This legislation, Bill C-10, is a perfect example of that.

Let us be clear about what the commissioner could and could not do. They would have no binding authority. They could not compel departments to act, enforce treaty obligations or impose consequences on ministers or officials who fail indigenous treaty partners. What are we doing here? What would the commissioner actually be able to do? They could observe and report. Then what? Indigenous nations would still be left to do what they have always been forced to do under Liberal governments: hire lawyers, go to court and fight the Crown to enforce agreements that are already law.

We already know where the failures are. The leaders have told us. Parliamentary committees have heard it. The Auditor General has reported on it repeatedly. The problem is not a lack of oversight but a lack of execution. Creating a commissioner does not fix that.

It is worth reminding the House that modern treaties are not symbolic documents but constitutionally protected agreements in federal law. Implementing them is not optional, yet under the Liberal government, not a single modern treaty has been finalized, despite more than 70 groups currently being in negotiations.

The Conservative record was much better at completing agreements. Until such time as the Liberals start putting the needs of the indigenous people of Saskatoon West ahead of those of the bureaucrats in Ottawa, I cannot and will not support this legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, with respect to projects of national interest, we heard over and again from the many witnesses at the natural resources committee that the path forward for Canada is working in reconciliation with indigenous rights holders to get projects built and to share that economic prosperity.

Can the member opposite comment on his leader's opinion that the federal government should override those rights in order to build pipelines?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, within the member's question was the whole point of this. People, whether they are indigenous people or all people in Canada, quite frankly, are asking for results. People want to see results. People want to see their lives get better. They want to see better job prospects. They want to make more money. They want to have a roof over their heads. They want to have their families protected and their lives made better in Canada with the promise of Canada. This kind of legislation is not helping them.

This legislation would create bureaucracy. It would probably create jobs here in Ottawa. It would spend a lot of money doing something that we can already do in the systems, groups and bureaucracy that we already have.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, in Canada we have several means of protecting civil liberties, whether it be law enforcement, the Canadian Armed Forces or other mechanisms. In that same line of thinking, indigenous people deserve just as much protection as all Canadians. I wonder if the member agrees that the more that we have to ensure that there is implementation of important contracts like the modern treaties, the more measures like this are necessary to ensure that the treaties are being implemented.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, of course it is important. We have laws in this country that need to be enforced and things that need to be done. The government has obligations to all kinds of people—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Order. It is very difficult to hear ourselves think in here. Can we check on what is happening in the courtyard, please?

The hon. member for Saskatoon West.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, the government has obligations to fulfill things like treaties, but another bureaucracy would not solve that problem. We already have ministers. We have two indigenous departments in the government. We have an Auditor General. There are many, many ways that these kinds of things can be enforced and implemented, and that is what needs to be done. We need action on these things. We need them to be done, not to create more bureaucracies the government can just point to and say, “Well, we did this,” instead of actually acting.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague and congratulate him on his speech.

Today, the Conservatives are saying that this new position of commissioner for modern treaty implementation would not be good for indigenous communities. I would like to remind my colleague that, when Bill C-5 on projects of national interest was being studied in June, indigenous communities were not consulted. At the time, the interests of indigenous communities were not important to his party. Now my colleague is saying that the interests of indigenous communities are important after all.

Last June, the Conservatives did not think it was important to consult these communities on a bill their party supported using a gag order imposed by the Liberals. Now, regarding Bill C-10, which seeks to create a commissioner responsible for helping indigenous people enforce treaty law, consultation is suddenly important. I wonder if my colleague can explain this rather blatant inconsistency.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is important for us to consult all people, whether for a new pipeline or whatever the project might be. Once again, I am coming back to the point that this legislation would not actually help that. We already have the mechanisms in government. We have departments and ministers. We have an abundance of bureaucrats. We have an Auditor General. We have so many different ways that we can consult with communities in Canada, particularly with indigenous communities in Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, my friend from Saskatoon West highlighted quite well our position on this bill. We agree that the government has been failing for decades to live up to the words of treaties, modern or otherwise. We appreciate the frustration the partners have had with this. The problem we have with this legislation is that there would be no enforcement. What would the consequences be? I think the member would like to comment more.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague hit on a wonderful point here, that ultimately there need to be teeth in legislation. When we do things around here that are meant to help people, there should be ways for those reports or mechanisms that come back from commissioners, or whoever it might be, to actually generate results, because, ultimately, that is the goal. We want results. We need results in this country, and that is something we are sorely lacking right now.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act respecting the Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me start by acknowledging that Canada's Parliament is located on the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin people, whose presence here reaches back to time immemorial.

I am honoured to rise in the House today to speak in support of Bill C-10, an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation. This legislation represents a vital step forward, one that would strengthen accountability, enhance transparency and build trust with modern treaty partners across the country. It would also reinforce our shared commitment to reconciliation and to ensuring that Canada keeps its promises.

For too long, there has been a gap between the commitments made in modern treaties and the reality of their implementation. This bill would take a significant step toward closing that gap. By establishing an independent agent of Parliament, the commissioner for modern treaty implementation, Canada would ensure that progress on modern treaty obligations is transparent, measurable and accountable. This is not a symbolic gesture. It is a concrete, practical reform that would support real progress in implementing the rights and relationships enshrined in modern treaties.

Our government has made significant policy changes that enable us to conclude treaty negotiations faster and more effectively. As a result, Liberal governments over the past decade have signed or initialled five modern treaties, including, most recently, with the Manitoba Métis Federation in 2024. Right now, Canada's new government is nearing the initialling of six new modern treaties, and we will continue to advance this important work alongside indigenous partners. This bill and the commissioner it would create would build trust, enhance transparency and deliver the results that modern treaty partners have been advocating for. When it comes to modern treaties, we intend to listen to indigenous partners.

The commissioner would provide independent oversight of federal activities related to modern treaty implementation, ensuring that progress is visible and its shortcomings are addressed transparently. Through regular reporting and public accountability, Canadians and modern treaty partners alike would have a clear picture of how Canada is meeting its obligations. Accountability is at the heart of this legislation.

The commissioner would join a distinguished group of agents of Parliament, officers who safeguard the principles of our democracy, like the Auditor General, who ensures public funds are used effectively; the Privacy Commissioner, who protects Canadians' personal information; the Information Commissioner, who upholds the right to know; and the Commissioner of Official Languages, who defends linguistic rights across federal institutions. Each plays a vital role in strengthening public trust, yet until now, there has been no independent oversight to ensure that Canada fulfills its constitutional obligations under modern treaties. That is the gap this legislation would fill.

The commissioner would have full and direct access to the information required to evaluate federal performance, a level of independence on par with other oversight officers such as the Auditor General and Privacy Commissioner. This is the benchmark of openness and accountability, essential to maintaining public confidence and ensuring credible, evidence-based oversight. Transparency is not about blame. It is about clarity, openness and shared progress.

When modern treaty partners, Parliament and Canadians can see how modern treaty implementation is progressing, trust grows. Imagine a future where all Canadians can access clear information on where treaty commitments are being fulfilled and where more work is needed. That is what this bill would deliver.

Transparency empowers communities, strengthens governance and builds the foundation for a better relationship between Canada and indigenous peoples. Transparency and trust make good governance stronger. They turn promises into measurable progress and ensure that reconciliation is grounded in evidence and results.

Reconciliation takes shape through the everyday work of implementing commitments, resolving gaps and fostering trust. This legislation would move reconciliation from aspiration to administration, ensuring that the work of partnership is measured and maintained. Modern treaties are at the core of this journey. They affirm indigenous rights and outline shared responsibilities for the future.

However, treaties are only as strong as their implementation. The bill would ensure that implementation will be guided by independent oversight, clear reporting and mutual accountability. By embedding transparency and accountability into our systems, we are advancing reconciliation not just with words but with action.

The commissioner's work would complement Canada's commitments under the Truth and Reconciliation Commission calls to action and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. These frameworks remind us that oversight and accountability are not obstacles to reconciliation; they are its foundation.

What is great about the legislation is that it was co-developed with modern treaty partners. Over 130 indigenous governments and organizations were engaged in shaping this proposal, ensuring the design reflects their experience and priorities. That process has already built trust, and that trust will continue once the commissioner begins their work.

As the Tli?cho Government stated, “The Commissioner for Modern Treaty has been decades in the making. This is an exciting moment that our hard work together has paid off, and this important mechanism for accountability and oversight will be established.”

Through ongoing engagement and dialogue, the commissioner would ensure that the perspectives of modern treaty partners are reflected in the reviews and recommendations. This is how partnership becomes policy and how reconciliation becomes reality.

Modern treaties are much more than legal instruments. They are blueprints for opportunity. They provide a framework for governance, education, infrastructure and economic development. When implemented effectively, they enable indigenous governments to plan long-term, attract investment and create jobs. By improving implementation and accountability, the bill would strengthen those outcomes, not only for indigenous peoples but for all Canadians.

Modern treaties contribute to stronger local economies, better infrastructure and sustainable growth. When indigenous communities thrive, Canada thrives. As an agent of Parliament, the commissioner would report directly to Parliament, ensuring independence from political influence. These reports would highlight successes, identify challenges and recommend systemic improvements to ensure better outcomes. This accountability mechanism would serve both Parliament and modern treaty partners, providing transparent information and supporting continuous progress.

Accountability is not about perfection. It is about persistence, learning and the courage to adapt. It shows modern treaty partners that Canada is prepared to hold itself to the same standard of responsibility it asks of others.

The bill is about accountability, trust and reconciliation in action. It ensures that Canada fulfills not only the letter of its modern treaty obligations but also the spirit, grounded in partnership, respect and shared responsibility. The commissioner for modern treaty implementation would bring independent oversight, greater transparency and meaningful accountability. This is not a cost but a tool that would prevent disputes, strengthen relationships and deliver lasting results.

We have made progress, but we know there is more to do. Let us seize upon this opportunity to make reconciliation real, not only with words but with measurable results. The bill strengthens the institutions that uphold reconciliation, not by rewriting the past but by ensuring accountability for the future. By supporting the act, we affirm that transparency and trust are the cornerstones of our shared journey forward. Meegwetch. Qujannamiik. Marsi.

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

Mr. Speaker, what can Parliament not do that is contained in Bill C-10? My concern with the bill is that it is simply an admonishment that Parliament has not been doing its job holding the executive accountable already.

What is to stop the existing standing committee from issuing a report or conducting an audit? Parliament already has these powers. Why do we need another officer of Parliament to do the job of parliamentarians?

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

Mr. Speaker, while it is true that existing committees can undertake studies of this kind, many committees do a lot of work on many different things.

What is important about this approach is that it is a focus mechanism that is deeply integrated in our relationship with indigenous people and would allow this new agent of Parliament to focus very directly, on an ongoing basis, on matters that are of concern to indigenous partners.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's intervention on modern treaties was heartfelt and sincere.

This commissioner will indeed play a role vital to us as parliamentarians. We will be able to take responsibility and ask the right questions. In short, we support this bill. I had the opportunity to speak at first reading.

Here is my question. After my speech, I received a lot of feedback, especially from the Land Claims Agreements Coalition. Incidentally, it will be holding an event on Parliament Hill tomorrow, and I encourage all parliamentarians to attend.

If there is one person who is especially important to this coalition, it is Jim Aldridge. I would like to propose that this bill be named after him in committee. It would be known as Jim Aldridge's bill. I think this would mean a lot to everyone who has had a hand in modern coalition issues over the past few decades. I would like my colleague to comment on this idea.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's support for the bill.

In terms of what we call it, that is really up to the legislation. I have no objection to his suggestion, but I would suggest that once it, hopefully, passes second reading, this is something that could be addressed in committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made a key point here: that this legislation was co-developed with treaty partners and indigenous rights holders in order to ensure accountability, oversight and transparency and to build trust.

I wonder if the member could elaborate on what the input was from rights holders and how it was included in the legislation that is before us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a list here of dozens of indigenous partners that were consulted. In my speech, I mentioned there were 130 organizations and indigenous governments that were consulted.

This position of an independent agent of Parliament has been requested by indigenous partners and peoples for at least 20 years. It is critical in being able to focus on the deficiencies in the processes and to make sure that we achieve effective progress going forward.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I completely agree that this is such an important act of reconciliation. I wonder if the member agrees that reconciliation not only happens through government but has to be an effort by everyone who can help ensure that indigenous peoples have a better sense of well-being.

I wonder if the member agrees that with the Conservatives being opposed to this bill, it also shows they are not supporting reconciliation with the modern treaty partners.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with my hon. colleague about how important this bill is for all of us, each and every person in this country who benefits from a long-time establishment on former indigenous lands, unceded and unreconciled. We all have a stake in the outcome, and we all have something to offer going forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, in reference to the debate that just took place, I do not believe the Liberal government has passed very many treaties in the last decade. It is almost as though the Liberals are slapping themselves on the wrist for not doing their job.

Today, I rise to oppose Bill C-10, an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation. The stated aim of the bill is better accountability in modern treaty implementation. It sounds attractive, but what this bill would really do is create another officer of Parliament and another office, expanding oversight without enforcement, duplication without delivery and bureaucracy without results.

At the heart of this debate is a constitutional first principle. Signing and enacting treaties is the duty of the Crown, of the executive, and not of Parliament. Our core functions in the House are to debate, scrutinize and approve spending, as well as to hold the executive to account. Creating an officer of Parliament to hover over executive treaty work veers away from our legislative remit and blurs lines of responsibility.

The bill's machinery of appointment, mandate, review, audit and tabling would recast a fundamentally executive obligation as a parliamentary oversight project, which is a category error. Parliament should enforce accountability through votes, questions, committee scrutiny and the public accounts process, not by inventing new officers to monitor what ministers should already execute. The honour of the Crown is upheld by action, not by multiplying overseers.

Modern treaties are not obscure documents. They are transparent, publicly accountable instruments that reconcile aboriginal rights and title with Crown title and give certainty to all parties. They are accessible. Nothing is redacted and they acknowledge one country, one set of laws and management plans designed to benefit everyone.

My colleague, the MP for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, has noted that modern treaties provide the most transparent and accountable form of reconciliation. Nobody is put at a disadvantage and the final agreements can be accessed and read by anyone. The member from the Haisla Nation would know better than most people in this chamber.

The bill would hand the commissioner discretion to set priorities, conduct reviews and performance audits, issue findings and recommendations, and table final reports in Parliament. It would require coordination with the Auditor General to avoid duplication and provide access to information and immunity provisions, yet nowhere does the bill compel ministers or departments to act when they fail to meet treaty obligations. It would be monitoring without muscle.

For years, the Auditor General has produced reports detailing implementation delays and fragmented responsibilities. The problem has never been insufficient reporting. The problem has been a lack of ministerial responsibility and follow-through. Adding a new office and more reports would not build a single home, deliver clean water or move one project to completion. Accountability requires consequences, not another commissioner.

If we want real progress, we must return to fundamental ministerial responsibility. We should mandate clarity and require the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations to embed modern treaty implementation milestones in departmental mandates and Treasury Board frameworks, so obligations would not be optional, but operational. We should have routine reporting to Parliament. The minister could proactively report to Parliament during Routine Proceedings, tabling quarterly treaty implementation statements, including what has been met, what has been delayed and how each delay would be fixed, with specific dates and supporting documents. This is how Parliament is supposed to exercise its core function of scrutinizing performance and spending in public.

We can act on audits. When the Auditor General flags failures, the minister should table an action plan, perhaps in 60 days, and committees should hold accountability hearings until commitments are met. There should be consequences for non-performance, tying senior official performance pay to treaty milestones and, where chronic delays persist, changing leadership. Accountability must be felt inside departments, not outsourced to a new office.

My colleague from the Haisla Nation emphasized that overlap issues among first nations should be worked out between the affected nations and not left to the courts or government to impose solutions. This is real partnership that respects indigenous leadership to resolve boundaries through negotiation rather than litigation.

He notes that we need to call out the current government for not living up to its obligations to treaty bands that negotiated in good faith and sets out two practical Conservative solutions. Number one is that the government needs to do its job to respect and implement treaties. Number two is that, if a treaty band has an issue with government, it should go to MPs to help its representatives amplify its voice. It should come to Ottawa to hold us accountable for what we are here to do.

These principles align with a ministerial responsibility model. They empower the parties to solve overlaps, require the minister to remove federal roadblocks, and ensure Parliament has the performance lens to see whether the minister has, in fact, delivered.

Members can consider the bill's architecture. The commissioner's appointment and tenure mandate is framed around assessing consistency with Crown honour and broad objectives, discretion over reviews and audits, reports tabled by Speakers and referred to committees, annual and special reports, parliamentary reviews within 10 years, independent reviews every five to seven years and consequential amendments adding the office to key statutes. All of this is oversight machinery, but there are no enforcement levers to compel execution of obligations already within our laws.

We are proliferating process instead of guaranteeing performance. We are not fixing diffusion over responsibility across departments; we are adding a new layer above it. By making an officer of Parliament central to executive treaty functions, we would be subtly shifting accountability away from ministers and towards an umpire whose principal tool would be a report. That is not how we deliver reconciliation.

Canadians are facing real affordability pressures. The answers cannot be to grow administrative overhead while frontline outcomes stall. Dollars should flow to delivery, not duplication. If we need transparency, we can use existing parliamentary tools such as committee mandates, Order Paper questions, supply votes, public accounts and Auditor General follow-ups, so performance and spending are scrutinized where they belong.

The preamble to Bill C-10 invokes UNDRIP, modern treaties as living documents and the honour of the Crown. Those are important aspirations, but they are realized only when governments do what they have promised, on time and in full, not when we create a new office to monitor yet another delay.

Modern treaties do deliver certainty for indigenous governments, neighbouring communities, investors and private property owners who need predictable rules. This is reconciliation by results, grounded in the rule of law.

Conservatives, of course, support modern treaties and indigenous communities seeking to move beyond the paternalistic Indian Act. We will oppose Bill C-10 because it confuses monitoring for delivery. Conservatives will insist on ministerial responsibility, acting on audits and the respect of a practical approach, one that leads to real results.

The honour of the Crown is not measured by the number of commissioners we appoint; it is measured by promises kept. Modern treaties deserve execution, not another report. For these reasons, I will vote against this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned that Parliament's remit is not only legislation but also holding government to account. He mentioned many times the Auditor General. I would remind the member that the role of this new commissioner is exactly in parallel with that of the Auditor General. Its job is to inform Parliament, to make Parliament more able to hold ministers to account and to hold government to account.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[William Stevenson, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would go back to the original point that ministers have the ability to set in place the accountability and the responsibility within existing legislation. Let us have a culture of accountability and responsibility. Let us implement the treaties. Let us walk, or in fact run, down the path to truth and reconciliation.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have a great nation. I think all of us can agree on that. We and those who came before us have worked to build a country that all Canadians can feel proud to be part of, but we are not perfect. We have not always lived up to our ideals as a nation. One area we have fallen short is when it comes to our obligations to our indigenous people.

Our nation is a relatively young one. The relationship with indigenous people predates the establishment of Canada as an independent country, with first nations negotiating treaties with the British Crown. With Confederation, Canada took on the responsibility for those agreements, agreeing to hold up our end of the bargain. Too often, we have not lived up to our commitments, observing neither the spirit nor the letter of law. I hope that we have learned from past mistakes and that the distrust in the relationships between Canada, indigenous people and those who came here later can be mended.

According to the Canadian Encyclopedia:

Indigenous treaties in Canada are constitutionally recognized agreements between the Crown and Indigenous peoples. Most of these agreements describe exchanges where Indigenous nations agree to share some of their interests in their ancestral lands in return for various payments and promises. On a deeper level, treaties are sometimes understood, particularly by Indigenous people, as sacred covenants between nations that establish a relationship between those for whom Canada is an ancient homeland and those whose family roots lie in other countries. Treaties therefore form the constitutional and moral basis of alliance between Indigenous peoples and Canada.

In our fact-based world, we are sometimes uncomfortable with the idea of anything having a moral basis. The idea of morality, of something being instinctively right or wrong, seems to have gone out of fashion in some circles, which may be why the Liberals have introduced this legislation, Bill C-10, the commissioner for modern treaty implementation act. By creating a new position and accompanying bureaucracy, the Liberals are attempting to deflect from the fact that they have not lived up to their moral obligations. Instead of doing what is right, they are trying to deflect attention away from what they are not doing, which is not living up to their responsibilities under the treaties signed with first nations.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada called on the federal government to “Renew or establish Treaty relationships based on principles of mutual recognition, mutual respect, and shared responsibility for maintaining those relationships into the future.” In order for that to happen, the Liberals must first admit that they have failed to respect the treaties between our country and its first nations.

On October 21, the Auditor General released a report on first nations as a follow-up to the six previous audits done since the Liberals formed government in 2015. Those audits covered a range of programs important to the health and well-being of first nations communities, including programs providing access to primary health care, emergency management services and safe drinking water. Despite Indigenous Services Canada increasing its program spending by 84% in the past six years, there remain significant challenges in improving services and outcomes for first nations communities. For example, there are nine communities with drinking water advisories that have been in place for a decade or longer. How can this be acceptable in Canada in 2025? Whatever happened to Justin Trudeau's promise in 2015 to end drinking water advisories. Sadly, his words seem like more hollow promises, cynically uttered by Liberals to gain votes, knowing they would not deliver on their promises.

According to the Auditor General, Indigenous Services Canada has made unsatisfactory progress in addressing the needs identified in previous reports; 53% of those issues are not resolved. Do the Liberals understand their failure in this matter? Instead of ensuring that the identified needs of indigenous communities are being met, they are now proposing to create more bureaucracy.

We do not need a commissioner for modern treaty implementation; we need a government that understands the needs of Canadians and that lives up to its commitments to them. It should not take another bureaucracy or bureaucrat to ensure that Canada does the right thing. It should not take another bureaucrat to ensure that Canada lives up to its treaty commitments.

Keeping our word used to be a Canadian value. Why does the government think it is necessary to invent a new bureaucracy to ensure that it keeps its word? Is it that the Liberals are so used to making promises and then not keeping them that they need someone to keep them in line? We need to live up to our treaty obligations. We should not need a new government department in order to do that.

It is important to note that the proposed commissioner would deal solely with the modern treaties between Canada and our first nations. The modern treaty era began in 1973, after a Supreme Court of Canada decision that recognized indigenous rights for the first time. The decision led to the first modern treaty, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, signed in 1975. Since then, Canada has negotiated and signed 26 treaties with indigenous groups in Canada, 18 of which contain self-government provisions or associated self-government agreements.

Before 2000, modern treaties were negotiated in the form of comprehensive land claim agreements, and only a few modern treaty partners negotiated self-government agreements separately. Since 2000, all modern treaties have included provisions for self-government. The federal government and modern treaty partners co-developed Canada's collaborative model treaty implementation policy in 2023.

Conservatives support the treaty rights and the process of reconciliation with Canada's first nations, Inuit and Métis people. We recognize that more needs to be done to advance those rights, which include self-determination and self-government. Conservatives, under former prime minister Harper, negotiated five modern treaties in the span of six years. In more than a decade, the Liberals have negotiated none with the 70 indigenous groups currently negotiating with the government.

True reconciliation comes with meeting our commitments to Canada's first nations. We should not need a new level of bureaucracy to make sure that, as a nation, we keep the agreements we sign. The Auditor General has pointed out where we are failing in our treatment of indigenous peoples. Years are going by, and problems are not being solved. No wonder reconciliation seems no closer than it was a decade ago. Rather than demanding accountability from “Ottawa knows best” bureaucrats, the Liberals are proposing to create a new layer of bureaucracy, which of course means spending more money at a time when Canadians can ill afford it.

There is no need for the bill. Rather than create a commissioner for modern treaty implementation, why do the ministers and departments responsible for treaty negotiation and implementation not do their jobs?

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

Mr. Speaker, if we look at what indigenous communities themselves would like, we see that the support of having an independent officer of the House of Commons seems to be a very strong step forward with respect to both reconciliation and a higher sense of accountability and transparency. Why does the Conservative Party not support the independence of that agent's answering to Parliament?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what is appointing bureaucrats going to do? There are no results being delivered by the government as far as this file goes. There has been nothing done and no progress made in the last 10 years. What is the point of appointing someone? It is just to add another bureaucracy. I do not think the community is looking for that. The community is looking for action and looking for results, and unless those results are delivered, there is no point in adding another bureaucracy.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have seen overwhelming support for this bill from first nations. I believe that the commissioner will be a watchdog who will conduct research and provide us with information so that we can enforce the treaties if the government fails to do so.

That said, I think the commissioner should also have coercive powers. What does my colleague think?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the debate here is between delivering results and showing signals that really do not deliver anything to the people. The community wants results. It wants more action. It wants to see that things are progressing properly, and some of the issues the community is facing need to be resolved. That is what the community is looking for.

How to approach that, in our opinion as the Conservative Party of Canada, is that we need to see results and we need to make sure that the people responsible for these files, the minister and the department, do their jobs.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his great speech on Bill C-10. He could not have outlined it better.

What we are really looking for from the government is a bit of action on a whole host of things. This bill is just adding bureaucracy instead of getting the government out of the way and doing the things that it says it is going to do, much the same way as it says it is going to build pipelines and then does not build pipelines. The government said it was going to build national infrastructure at speeds unseen before and we are not seeing this. Once again, we see the relationship with the first nations in this country. This is just an appeasement, just a smoke and mirrors kind of thing.

Does the member have any comments on that?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in the last decade, the government has not negotiated a single treaty with the indigenous community. That tells us a lot. There are 70 groups right now negotiating with the government. They are going to continue to negotiate and negotiate, but no one, especially the government, is showing any results. The government is not showing us the truth of what it is doing. Unless we reach that point, it is really pointless to continue developing bureaucracy after bureaucracy. I believe the community is looking for action. It is looking for results and that is where the Conservative Party is standing on this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to disagree about the importance of the implementation of this commissioner to hold government to account. Often, treaties have been signed and those agreements have not been implemented. It has been uneven, inconsistent and ignored. We heard that this morning from Chief John Jack from Huu-ay-aht First Nations and Chief Wilfred Cootes from Uchucklesaht. They are calling for the commissioner to hold the government to account to ensure that when treaties are signed, they are actually implemented.

Why are the Conservatives going against the calls to action by indigenous peoples in this country who want to work nation to nation to support their people and build a better, healthier Canada?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in the system that we have for our democracy, I believe that Parliament should keep the government in line. If we need to add layers and layers to keep the government in place, then what are we doing here? Why are we here? We are here to represent the people and defend their rights, and I think Parliament should have the power to do that, not another new bureaucracy.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, The Budget; the hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City, Natural Resources.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation. What would it do? The enactment would provide for the appointment of a commissioner of modern treaty implementation. The commissioner's job would be to conduct reviews and performance audits of the activities of the government related to the implementation of modern treaties, or rather, the government's failure to implement treaties. This is a failure that the Office of the Auditor General, another agency of Parliament, has pointed out in numerous reports. For years, the Auditor General has been shouting from the treetops that the government must take the treaty process seriously, and for 10 years, the Liberals have done nothing. They have dragged their feet.

Admittedly, this is not a problem of just the last 10 years; it has been brewing since the early days of Confederation. However, I must highlight that under the Conservative government of Stephen Harper, Canada negotiated five modern treaties. Since then, in the last 10 years, there have been zero, which is the problem.

The need to expedite treaties, as I said, goes back to the early days of our history, to the 1850s in British Columbia, when the British Crown claimed sovereignty over Vancouver Island and the mainland, what we now call British Columbia. There were some early treaties under Governor James Douglas, the Douglas treaties, over Vancouver Island. After that, subsequent governors and colonial legislatures dropped the ball.

In 1871, British Columbia became part of the Canadian Confederation, and at that time, the federal government took over some of the responsibility for treaty negotiations under section 91 of the British North America Act, but it too dropped the ball. This is continuing right now. The Liberals are continuing not to pick up the ball, not to run with it.

What are the Liberals doing? They are hiding behind this proposed legislation. They want to appoint a commissioner to take a look at all of this, to see why things have not been happening. This is another unnecessary bill from a government that is lacking creativity. It is becoming a crisis.

The recent decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court in the Cowichan Tribes case underlines what happens when the Crown does not follow through with its commitments to respect indigenous rights. What do we get? We get community unrest, economic uncertainty and confusion. What did the judge say in that case? She said that aboriginal title is superior to fee simple title, which is a basic form of land ownership that everyone understands and that forms the very basis of our modern capitalist system. Our economy, banking system, financial security, home ownership and retirement planning are all based on the concept of fee simple.

Now people and businesses in the Richmond area, where these lands are, as well as right across the whole province, are worried that their fee simple title is not as secure as they thought it was. What is important too is that banks and financial institutions are also starting to doubt the indefeasibility of fee simple title. We have heard of some big real estate deals collapsing on account of banks feeling nervous. The provincial government steps forward and says it will guarantee those loans, but that is not the solution. The solution is to deal properly and effectively with the first nations people and enter into treaties.

The land at the centre of this dispute is not in some remote area of British Columbia where the land is still owned by the Crown. No, it is right in the heart of metro Vancouver. There are commercial properties there, shopping malls, residential neighbourhoods and even a jet fuel tank station supplying nearby Vancouver International Airport. Quite frankly, Vancouver cannot operate without these lands staying pretty much exactly the way they are, so we have a very big problem.

What is the solution? This speech is not about how to resolve the Cowichan lands challenges. I have some ideas, but that is not what we are talking about. Today we are talking about how we go forward with implementing modern-day treaties so we avoid ongoing issues like this and the economic uncertainty that arises. I raise this case only to point out how important and urgent it is that we move forward.

Throughout B.C., there is a lot of work to be done. I am thinking of metro Vancouver and first nations communities in highly urbanized areas, like the Kwantlen First Nation in my home community of Fort Langley, or the Katzie First Nation in the northern part of my community, or the Semiahmoo in neighbouring White Rock. None of them have treaties, and they are losing confidence in the treaty process, so I welcome the debate, as people in my home province are concerned.

However, it is not all negative. There is good news. In British Columbia, there have been some notable success stories in the ongoing quest to implement modern treaties. I want to talk about the Tsawwassen First Nation settlement of 2009.

The Tsawwassen First Nation land, like the Cowichan land, is in metro Vancouver, surrounded by very valuable land. It is close to the port of Vancouver and the B.C. ferry terminal. There is a lot of good farmland there as well. This is one of the five modern treaties that were successfully negotiated during the Harper years, and it is a leading example of what can be done in an urbanized setting.

The treaty transferred 724 hectares of land to the Tsawwassen First Nation community, which now holds it in fee simple. It is something they can take to the bank, which is not something they could have done under the Indian Act. The Tsawwassen First Nation community is acting on that. Its people have developed the land so that it is bringing prosperity to their community. They have a couple of very large shopping malls and industrial properties supporting the nearby port, and there is still lots of farmland available. Of the 724 hectares, I believe 500 is still farmland. This is very rich farmland, right in the Fraser River estuary, which supports Canadian food security and sovereignty.

We have two examples coming out of British Columbia. One is a very good one, the Tsawwassen First Nation, and one is not so good, the Cowichan Tribes case. I suppose the latter might also be a good example of what could go wrong, underlining the urgency of moving forward.

To get back to the main topic, Bill C-10, an act respecting the commission for modern treaty implementation, people who were expecting that the bill would actually accelerate the treaty process in British Columbia and throughout Canada will be disappointed. The bill is simply about setting up a new bureaucracy to keep an eye on existing bureaucracies that have failed time and again to get the job done.

In my years in this Parliament, I have observed time and again how the Liberals act. Their politics is performative politics. They want to appear to be doing something about whatever is being debated in the Parliament of the day, the issues of the period. If major projects are being held up because of federal bureaucracy getting in the way, then let us set up a Major Projects Office. If housing is unaffordable and new houses are not being built, then we have an office for that too. Now, if indigenous treaty rights are not being respected, then let us set up a commission. However, it is not necessary. The Liberals appear to be doing something, but in fact, the bill before us would do very little to move the needle forward.

I have just three words for the Liberals: “Do your job.” They should stop the performative arts, stop preening in front of the cameras, roll up their sleeves and, finally, for once, do the hard stuff.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat unfortunate that Conservatives do not understand or appreciate the importance of having an agent of Parliament being assigned in this area. I think it would do wonders in terms of everything from the modern-day treaties to the whole movement towards reconciliation. I think they are underestimating the importance of reconciliation by not necessarily supporting Bill C-10.

Does the member believe that there is any connection between reconciliation and the idea of having an agent of Parliament to deal with modern-day treaties?

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

Mr. Speaker, indeed, we already have an agent that is responsible for that. That agent is called the Auditor General. The unfortunate part is that the Liberals have not been taking the reports from the Office of the Auditor General seriously. That applies to many matters, including when reports comment on their lack of action on indigenous rights and settling treaties. That should have been done a long time ago. It is time for them to do their job.

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

Mr. Speaker, representatives from that side of the House, the government, claim that the Conservatives have no idea what we are really talking about, when what we are talking about is accountability.

I was a chief councillor. I was a chairman of the treaty negotiations. I was actually part of First Nations Summit, an advocacy group based out of Vancouver of all chief negotiators. I know of the six oversight committees that are actually fighting for basic accountability. There is also the Auditor General, the highest, most powerful, basically non-political group in Canada, who has been telling the government that it has to respect treaties. The only group in the House that does not respect accountability for treaty implementation is the government. Would my colleague agree that basically there are enough provisions in the treaty, as well as organizations that are demanding accountability from the government—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Langley Township—Fraser Heights.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley on the work he has done with the Haisla Nation and others in British Columbia for advancing indigenous reconciliation. I thank him very much for that.

With respect to accountability, the member pointed out correctly that the Auditor General is the ultimate holder to accountability of the government, and that office is being ignored. I predict that the Liberal government would ignore what this commissioner would say.

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

Mr. Speaker, we heard again this morning about the uneven, inconsistent and sometimes ignored implementation of the treaty process. We have heard from the nations wanting this treaty commissioner to absolutely ensure that treaty implementation happens. Now, we hear Conservatives say, “Well, that is a waste of money.” However, what is costly is not implementing a treaty because, when treaties are implemented, it creates jobs. Those nations want to participate in the economy. They want to move forward.

We hear also from the Conservatives all the time that the government should have done more. Absolutely, the government should do more, but so should the official opposition. Will the Conservatives admit that they need to ask more questions when it comes to indigenous issues in this place, as the official opposition?

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

Mr. Speaker, indeed it is the government's job to implement these treaties. As the opposition, our job is to hold the government to account, as it is that member's responsibility as well.

We need the Conservatives to form government. I am thinking of the Harper days when we actually got the job done. It can be done, and we are waiting for the government to finally take action to get the job done.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that we will be carrying it on division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 6:41 p.m. so we could get into the late show.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.