House of Commons Hansard #35 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was commissioner.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation Act Second reading of Bill C-10. The bill establishes an independent Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation to ensure federal accountability for treaty obligations. Liberals argue it is a vital, co-developed step for reconciliation, trust, and economic prosperity, urging quick passage. Conservatives oppose it as unnecessary bureaucracy, stating it duplicates the Auditor General's work, lacks enforcement power, and highlights the government's failure to sign new treaties. The Bloc supports the principle but seeks stronger enforcement powers. The Green Party urges swift, non-partisan passage, emphasizing Indigenous partners' long-standing advocacy. 56100 words, 7 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.
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.
Bill C-10 Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation ActGovernment Orders
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary 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.
Bill C-10 Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation ActGovernment Orders
Kings—Hants Nova Scotia
Liberal
Kody Blois LiberalParliamentary 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.