Debates of Oct. 7th, 2025

Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation Act

[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?