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.
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.
Bill C-10 Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation ActGovernment Orders
Conservative
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.
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, 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?