Debates of Nov. 28th, 2025

The House resumed from October 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act respecting the Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation Act

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to be blunt. The relationship between the Crown and indigenous peoples is not built on fancy titles or shiny new offices. It is built on honour and keeping our word, and the Liberal government has a real problem with that.

Bill C-10 is just another level of bureaucracy that is not needed. We do not need another office in Ottawa to tell us again that the government is not doing what it promised to do. We do not need a commissioner to point out failure. We can see that from here. We can see that in our communities all across our country.

In my riding of Cariboo—Prince George, indigenous leaders are living this each and every day. Just this week, Chief Willie Sellars and the Williams Lake First Nation council were in Ottawa. They did not come here looking for a handout. They came looking for partnership, especially on the reconstruction and redevelopment of the St. Joseph's Mission, a residential school in my hometown. They want real action, not more red tape, and who can blame them? In fact, when they asked to meet and discuss their plans, it was the Conservative Party that stepped up and said yes immediately. The shadow minister for indigenous services, the member for Edmonton Northwest, worked diligently to accommodate them, listen to them and make sure they had everything they needed.

Reconciliation has to be about more than words; it has to be a partnership. What I have seen in the last 10 years is the leadership on the other side standing, dabbing a fake tear, putting their hand on their heart and saying they really care, but what we have seen under the guise of reconciliation is that they have pitted first nation against first nation and first nation against non-first nation.

When Chief Willie and the council from Williams Lake First Nation asked to meet with our leader, the member for Battle River—Crowfoot stepped up immediately. He changed his schedule, took the time to listen, asked questions and worked to understand the path forward. That is what a real leader does. That is how we build trust. That is how we reconcile differences: leadership to leadership, not an agent of the government to leadership of first nations.

When they asked to meet with the Liberals, the government, the people with the ability to get things done, it truly was like pulling teeth. I know there are others on the other side, one of whom I am looking at right now at the centre of the Liberal caucus, who stand and say, as he does every day, that they have done this and that, but the reality is that the experience our leaders felt this week was less than desirable. Maybe if the Liberals spent less time creating new bureaucracies and more time actually listening, they would be in a better position to move our country forward on a whole host of issues.

I want to thank our shadow minister for Crown-indigenous relations, the hon. member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, who, like the member for Edmonton Northwest and the member for Battle River—Crowfoot, stepped up, changed his schedule and took the time to listen.

Communities like Lheidli T'enneh, Nazko, Lhtako, McLeod Lake, Cheslatta and Williams Lake First Nation are working hard. They are building economies, creating jobs and planning for the future, not just for their community but for our regions. However, the federal government keeps tripping over its own departments. It picks winners over losers. As I said earlier, it pits first nation against first nation. It has endless delays, points fingers and makes promises with no follow-through. However, instead of fixing anything, the Liberals want yet another office on Wellington Street to tell us what the government is not doing.

We do not need more bureaucrats. We need the ones who have the jobs to do their jobs. What is happening right now in Williams Lake and around the province is unacceptable, full stop. For decades, families, ranchers and long-time landowners have been living in limbo because of unresolved land claims. People deserve clarity, they deserve honesty and they deserve a seat at the table. Instead, they are getting brushed off while decisions that directly affect their livelihoods are made behind closed doors.

Indigenous land claims are serious matters historically, legally and morally, and no one disputes that, but when governments mishandle them, when they communicate poorly and when they ignore the people whose homes, businesses and generational lands are in the middle of it, they create fear and distrust. That is exactly what is going on with the B.C. government right now in my province.

What we are seeing play out across British Columbia right now should concern every single one of us. The latest court rulings, including the Cowichan decision that threw long-established land titles in the city of Richmond into doubt, have sent a shockwave through communities and should send a shockwave across our nation. Families that worked their whole lives to build something are waking up wondering if the land they bought in good faith is still truly theirs.

Why are we at this point? It is because successive governments have abdicated their duties. Ministers of the Crown have passed on their duties and responsibilities and abdicated them to their agents. The sad truth is that people are asking these questions because governments at every level have failed to bring clarity, failed to lead and failed to protect the people caught in the middle.

Let us be clear. Indigenous rights and title matter. They must be respected, but respecting indigenous rights and treating landowners fairly are not mutually exclusive. The problem is governments that refuse to do the hard work. The governments that need to resolve these issues before they explode into uncertainty and anxiety for everyone are failing. Instead of stepping up, the province is dodging responsibility. The federal government is talking about creating new bureaucracies, with more layers, more delays and more confusion.

British Columbians need leadership, not another game of pass the buck. It is time for Ottawa and Victoria to get their act together, sit everyone down at the same table and finally build a process that delivers justice, certainty and stability for all. We have ministers of the Crown. Can they not meet with these first nation leaders and come up with a solution that is acceptable to all? Rather than stepping up and taking responsibility, the province is shifting the burden onto everyone else.

There are landowners in the Chilcotin who have waited 10 years to find out whether their farms, ranches and guide and outfitting businesses are worth anything. The province is shifting the burden onto everyone else, and the federal government, instead of bringing leadership, clarity and support, is floating the idea of yet another bureaucracy. It is another layer, another office and another department. It is another way for the Liberals to say this is not their problem while pretending they are solving something. It is another way for them to have plausible deniability.

We all know what this really means: more delays, more red tape, more confusion and more people left in the dark. Ranchers in Chilcotin are not asking for anything unreasonable. They are asking for transparency, for respect and to be heard before decisions are made, not after. Landowners are not the enemy and indigenous communities are not the enemy.

The real problem is governments that refuse to communicate and refuse to lead. This does not have to be a fight. These issues can be resolved through real partnership. That means the province doing the job it is responsible for. It means the federal government and the ministers making sure that Canadians are not caught in the crossfire. It means both levels of government recognizing that their decisions have real consequences: Families wonder if their land will still be theirs, businesses are unsure if they should invest or expand and communities are left uncertain about their future.

Passing the buck is not leadership. Creating new bureaucracies is not leadership. Ignoring the people directly impacted is not leadership. The people of Canada deserve better.

Our governments, provincial and federal, need to stop sidestepping responsibility, start doing the hard work and bring all parties together, with no more delays, no more excuses and no more hiding behind the process. They need to fix this. We do not need another level of red tape or another commissioner, who will likely be a friend of the Liberal Party and get a high-paying job. We do not need that. They need to fix this. They need to listen to the people who are affected and do the right thing.

I stand here today embarrassed. I was proud of the leadership of the first nations from my hometown who came to this town to present their vision for their community and our region. What I have seen is them being snubbed by the Liberal Party time and again, being passed down and being told, “I want to finish my coffee before I meet with them.” Yes, that is a direct quote; that was said to me.

I work through these issues in a non-partisan way whenever I can in my community. I am proud to bring people to our region. I will offer this. We do not need another level of bureaucracy and we do not need more red tape. We need the people at the heads of these governments to sit down and do their jobs right now.

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

Madam Speaker, let me pick up on the word “embarrassed”. If the member is embarrassed, he should be embarrassed that the Conservative Party wants to do economic projects without any formal consent from indigenous communities.

He stands up and talks about reconciliation. He should listen to the questions the leader of the Conservative Party has put across related to pipelines.

How can the member possibly say that ignoring the interests of indigenous people in B.C. is a form of reconciliation? He has the audacity to say that we are not listening. Seriously, he should think about the issue.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will take no lessons from the hon. colleague across the way.

For nine years, he stood behind a leader who dismissed the first female indigenous attorney general and absolutely ran her right out of his government. When first nations protesters came to one of his events, the previous prime minister yelled at them and said, “Thank you for your donation.” At every turn, he pitted first nation against first nation and first nation against non-first nation, and he hid behind reconciliation for all his misdeeds.

I will take no lessons from that colleague.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Madam Speaker, what is going on right now is rather ironic. In fact, it is beyond irony. It is black comedy. Here we have a Liberal bill that we agree on, which talks about reconciliation with indigenous peoples and the need to consult them in advance. However, just yesterday, this same government announced an agreement to shove a pipeline down the throats of indigenous people in British Columbia that they do not want. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.

Does he not understand how resentful, if not completely alienated, all indigenous peoples in western Canada feel when they see that this government, which says that it wants to consult them before implementing international treaties, is announcing a pipeline and saying that it will consult them after the fact? In fact, it is clear that it will simply be shoved down their throats.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will go with the words of our colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley, who was the chief councillor for the Haisla Nation for six years and was a councillor for eight years. During that period, he was the treaty chairman and also led his community through massive economic projects, like the one with LNG Canada. He stewarded them through economic prosperity.

Obviously, there are first nation proponents and first nation opponents to these projects, but that is all the more reason we do not need an agent of the government to sit at the table. We need the ministers of the government to sit at the table and listen to the concerns so we can find a path forward for all of Canada.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I would like to ask the member about how important it is that this issue be a non-partisan issue, especially given that organizations like the Land Claims Agreements Coalition have been working hard for 20 years to make sure this bill is introduced, because it would, for example, honour UNDRIP and implement a portion of UNDRIP for indigenous peoples.

Taking a non-partisan approach to creating accountability will hold the government to account, no matter who the government is. That is why creating this commissioner position is important, and we should avoid taking partisan potshots at each other.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, here is my concern with having yet another layer of bureaucracy, which I am sure my colleague can appreciate. This building, this hall and parliaments all across our country are filled with studies and commissioner reports saying that government does not listen. If the government has ministers at the table speaking directly with leadership from all across our country, maybe they can come to some agreement on how we move forward.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak strongly against Bill C-10, the proposed modern treaty implementation act. Although the government frames this legislation as a step towards reconciliation and improved accountability, it is neither. Instead, it expands bureaucracy, repeats mechanisms that are already in place and diverts energy away from the real work in reaching agreements with the nations.

Conservatives believe in the importance of Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples. We believe deeply in honouring the treaties this country has signed, both historic and modern. Modern treaties represent decades of the negotiation, collaboration and sacrifice of first nations, Inuit and Métis partners. They define land rights. They established jurisdiction, and they provide a clear path towards local decision-making and economic certainty. These agreements matter, and they deserve to be implemented.

Bill C-10 does not advance that goal. In fact, it does the opposite. Since the 1970s, Canada has sought to move beyond numbered treaties and develop modern, comprehensive agreements that are grounded in partnership. Today, more than two dozen modern treaties are enforced across the country, from Nunavut to Yukon, Quebec and British Columbia, where I represent my riding.

These agreements form a critical foundation for reconciliation, economic development and indigenous self-government. They are supposed to be binding and enforceable, and they are supposed to hold the federal government accountable, but the government has consistently failed to meet its obligations under those agreements. This is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of record, and that record has been documented clearly, repeatedly and exhaustively by the Auditor General of Canada.

This brings me to the central flaw of the bill. Bill C-10 creates the position of a commissioner for modern treaty implementation, an office that would review, monitor, assess, evaluate and report on federal performance. Those are the words we have all seen before because they describe the existing mandate of the Auditor General. For nearly 20 years, the Auditor General has published report after report identifying federal failures in implementing modern treaties. These reports all say the same thing: There are chronic delays, unfulfilled commitments, inadequate coordination between departments and no meaningful consequences when obligations are ignored.

The oversight already exists. The findings exist. The recommendations exist. What does not exist is the government's willingness to act. One has to ask, where has accountability been? Who has faced the consequences for failing to uphold these treaties? I have yet to hear a single minister held responsible for years of missed deadlines and ignored commitments.

Instead of fixing the problems that have been highlighted by the Auditor General, the Liberals want to create a new office to highlight the same promises over and over again. This new commissioner comes with a price tag. It is not free. It comes with a price tag of $10.6 million over four years, money that could instead be used to actually implement treaty obligations, support indigenous governments' capacity or accelerate negotiations that have been solved for years. This is bureaucracy posing as progress, and Canadians are expected to cover the tab.

Yes, indigenous partners have expressed support for this bill because they want stronger oversight. They want something to actually be done, but accountability comes from implementation, not from another layer of review. Communities are calling for results, safer housing, reliable water and treaty commitments to be fulfilled. The only thing that will deliver that to them is a government that is willing to act on the oversight already in place, and the government has not done that.

To illustrate how redundant this office is, I will point out that the bill contains an entire section explaining that the commissioner must avoid duplication of work with the Auditor General and other oversight bodies that already exist. Even the legislation seems a little embarrassed by it. It states that the commissioner must “coordinate their activities” to prevent overlap. When a bill has to explicitly warn itself to not duplicate functions, it is clearly duplicating. That alone should tell the House everything it needs to know, but it gets worse.

The bill notes that the commissioner would not be a dispute resolution body. The commissioner would not be a performance auditor. The commissioner would get to decide their own priorities, including the number and frequency of reviews they would like to produce.

In other words, the office cannot solve failures, cannot enforce compliance and cannot even be compelled to work at the pace required to match the seriousness of the issues that are at hand. These issues are serious, not just in the province of B.C., where, in some places, they are exploding, but throughout Canada. Again, I ask what the office is supposed to do. The answer is nothing meaningful.

The problem is not a lack of oversight; the problem is a lack of action. The government has a long history of substituting announcements, offices and photo ops for actual implementation.

When faced with a problem, the Liberal instinct is always the same, to create a new bureaucracy and hope that symbolism distracts from inaction. Let us look at the record. Since 2015, despite promising a renewed nation-to-nation relationship, and despite promising to respect modern treaty partners, the government has negotiated zero new modern treaties. There has not been one in 10 years. There has been zero progress.

Meanwhile, under former prime minister Stephen Harper, Canada saw real results. Nine communities reached a final modern treaty agreement in six years. These were not symbolic gestures. They were fully negotiated agreements that required hard decisions, interdepartmental coordination and political will. Conservatives got things done, and the Liberals have not.

This context matters. A government that has failed to negotiate treaties and has failed to implement existing obligations now wants Parliament to believe that creating another office would miraculously fix the failures it has spent a decade ignoring. The claim is not credible. The Liberals argue that a commissioner would provide direction, but modern treaties do not need more direction; they need delivery.

Out of respect for our first nation partners, our neighbours, departments need to implement the agreements that have already been signed. Ministers need to enforce obligations already written in law. Commitments that have been sitting untouched for years need to be acted upon, not observed from afar by a new commissioner. Reconciliation is not achieved by expanding Ottawa's payroll. It is achieved when commitments are honoured.

Treaty partners have been patient. Some have been waiting for implementation milestones for decades. They deserve measurable progress, clear timelines and accountability, not more reports confirming what they already know, which is that the federal government has failed to meet its responsibilities.

Conservatives believe reconciliation must be practical and grounded in partnership, not in Ottawa-centric bureaucracy. We respect treaty rights. We respect the work, time and investment indigenous communities put into these agreements, and we believe that honouring that work requires implementation, not layers of duplication.

Let us be clear. If Bill C-10 passes, nothing will change. In four or five years, the Auditor General will still be issuing the same warnings, departments will still be missing deadlines, treaty partners will still be waiting and Canadians will still be asking where the money went. Oversight is not the issue; leadership is the issue. That is why Conservatives cannot support Bill C-10.

We will continue to advocate for transparent accountability. We will continue to push for the meaningful implementation of modern treaties. We will continue to insist that reconciliation requires action, not new offices in Ottawa.

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

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member can explain how it is that the Conservative Party respects treaty rights and is in favour of reconciliation when the leader of the Conservative Party is saying what he has been saying for the last week or more about what he believes the Conservative Party would do with respect to a pipeline. He does not believe that he has to consult and work with indigenous leaders, particularly in the province of British Columbia.

Looking at the bill itself, indigenous communities want to see an agent of Parliament. How does she reconcile that?

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

Madam Speaker, what is important about the bill is that it is not going to end with any results. It is a repeat of the bureaucratic layers that we already have. The Auditor General is already doing exactly what the Liberals plan to spend $4 million on.

We need to start actually doing the work. Our relationship with these communities, throughout Canada and B.C., is extremely important. We cannot waste time on bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for highlighting a concern that I think lots of Canadians have, and that is accountability measures and increasing bureaucracy.

The Liberals, over the last decade, have demonstrated that, when they increase bureaucrats, there is actually poorer service delivery. In this case, I really believe in what the member spoke about in her speech. There is a lack of accountability. It is not going to change by creating more bureaucracy. It is actually a leadership failure by the current Liberal government.

Could my hon. colleague comment on and re-emphasize her opinion on what this lack of accountability does under the current leadership of the Liberal government?

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

Madam Speaker, we do not need more bureaucracy, as the member mentioned. Relationships with first nations are extremely important, but when we set up more bureaucracy, it only makes things worse. There is more finger pointing and confusion. It sets communities against communities, and it sets us all up for bad faith and friction.

We need to help the relationships and work on the relationships between our communities, so that real progress can be made and real treaties can be made. In other words, we need to do the work.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I wonder what the member has to say to the over 130 indigenous groups that helped co-develop this bill in its original form, Bill C-77, of which Bill C-10 is a carbon copy. What does she say to them about the hard work they did to ensure that Bill C-10 could reach the stage that it is at?

Indigenous groups have been asking for the role of the commissioner to be created so they can see legal obligations finally implemented. As she correctly said in her statement, there is not enough implementation of legal treaties with first nations, and there needs to be a commissioner position to ensure that these obligations are being met.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague is definitely an expert in this field. I want to tell her that I actually want work to happen. I want this to move forward.

As she knows, the more bureaucracy and the more money that is thrown into a repetitive process, the less real work is going to be done. We need these treaties to actually happen. When there are no treaties, there are only delays and broken promises. It breeds contempt—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I will just interrupt the hon. member as the French interpretation is not working.

It is working now. The hon. member may finish her comment.

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

Madam Speaker, I just want to say that I want it to really happen. Conservatives want this to really happen, and we feel that another layer of bureaucracy will not allow that.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to an issue that, perhaps paradoxically, touches on one of Canada's most important yet too often overlooked relationships: our relationship with indigenous peoples.

The riding I represent includes the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte. Like many members in this House, I can candidly say that when I was first elected to represent the area we share with Tyendinaga, I did not truly understand as much as I should have about the community. I lacked an understanding of its history, culture and heritage. I did not fully appreciate the role Joseph Brant played during the American Revolution, the alliance he and his people forged with the British or the promises made to the Mohawk people in recognition of their fierce and loyal support. I did not know the full story of their migration after the war, the lands they lost or how Brant led his people to what would become their home in Canada, and for one group in particular, to the shores of the Bay of Quinte.

I like to think that from talking, engaging and, most importantly, listening, some of my earlier misunderstandings have begun to fall away. With many conversations, and incredibly patient and strong local indigenous leaders, advocates and community members, including colleagues in this very House, I have begun to learn more about the rich and diverse history of indigenous peoples in Canada. Every year I look forward to the celebration of the Mohawk landing in Tyendinaga. I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank Chief Don Maracle, the council and the people of Tyendinaga for their kindness, guidance and patience. It is an ongoing learning journey, but it is one in which I hope to continue to make meaningful progress.

There is one more misconception that I, especially as a federal legislator, must set aside when it comes to understanding indigenous communities, which is their relationship with Canada and the Crown. The most effective way to begin to do that is by listening. This means listening to the concerns of the council, the chief, local business owners, builders, educators and anyone else who wishes to have their voice heard. Of course, listening is a very important skill when engaging with any group, whether it is business leaders, foreign dignitaries or members of this chamber.

However, the relationships between Canada and indigenous communities are too often steeped in sadness, violence, betrayal, deception and neglect. They are numerous, and, most importantly, each of them is distinct. Too often, we speak of the indigenous community as though it were a single, uniform entity. It is not. There are indigenous communities, each with their own histories, governance structures, cultures and needs. Even the word “communities” fails to truly capture the full diversity and complexity that exists. This misconception is, if not the core, then certainly a major contributor to the veil that has obscured the understanding of far too many policy-makers and decision-makers here in Ottawa.

That misunderstanding, unfortunately, extends to this very place. The simple truth is that since its inception, Ottawa, and indeed Canada, has too frequently been unable or perhaps unwilling to treat every first nation, Métis and Inuit community with the individual respect, understanding and reverence it deserves. My concern is that the creation of yet another centralized office in Ottawa risks adding only another layer of bureaucratic indifference when what we require is a streamlined, responsive process capable of negotiating, settling and addressing historical wrongs with the attention each community merits.

I quote:

Non-Aboriginal Canadians hear about the problems faced by Aboriginal communities, but they have almost no idea how those problems developed. There is little understanding of how the federal government contributed to that reality through residential schools and the policies and laws in place during their existence.

That is from “Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future: Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada”. While it speaks specifically to the horror of residential schools, that same issue can be applied to far too many interactions between the state and aboriginal communities at a larger scale. That is what we parliamentarians need to do. It is what we need to do better at.

The reason this office has garnered some support from stakeholders is that they feel it is needed because government is not doing its due diligence in listening, engaging, learning and advocating for the treaty rights of first nations. The only thing Bill C-10 would do is create another office to release reports that would be ignored, reiterating what we already know is happening: The government is not doing its job.

What is worse is that it may remove the onus from far too many parliamentarians to engage and listen to indigenous communities regarding treaty rights, because they will just wait for the report and let the government deal with it, especially those parliamentarians who do not share their borders with an indigenous community.

There is another glaring issue at hand here. The government has an aversion to properly funding these offices and allowing them to maintain independence if they do not toe the line. Our procurement ombudsman does not have enough money to do their job, which they openly stated. The government is firing the interim Parliamentary Budget Officer because he spoke out against the government. In fact, the advertisement for his replacement is already published in the Canada Gazette.

I support treaty rights because I respect the rule of law and I respect the courts. To me, this is a fundamental underpinning of being a Tory. In many ways, these are the same reasons that convinced Joseph Brant and the Mohawk to ally with the British those many years ago. I want to be a part not of a government but of a House, a legislature and a nation that removes bureaucratic barriers to reconciliation, not doing what I fear would be putting them up. Ultimately, when the state is involved, action is only limited by will.

To put on my partisan hat for just a moment, I want to highlight some of the actions the Harper government took when, and I stress when, political will was shown. In 2013, the Conservative government implemented a change that accelerated and improved the process for resolving specific claims, itself an extension of the 2007 specific claims action plan. Following that, in 2008, through legislation developed in tandem with the Assembly of First Nations, was the Specific Claims Tribunal. It also achieved a number of modern treaties, including with the Tłı̨chǫ, Déline, Maa-nulth and Tsawwassen. This was done without the addition of a commissioner for modern treaty implementation. Was it enough? No, but it was done.

I do not believe I will support the legislation, because I believe it signals a silent abandonment of what we should be doing more of in the House: bringing that too-ignored relationship between Canada and first nations into this place, properly funding departments and agencies, and removing the barriers to settlement so that not just indigenous Canadians but also non-indigenous Canadians can move on with their lives, together.

Right now, in the area that I represent, there is a settlement ongoing after years of negotiations. The government has not been forthcoming with either the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte or the Town of Deseronto about what the final steps will mean for each of them. This is unacceptable for what is supposed to be one of the most straightforward treaties in the country.

I sincerely hope that the ministers will work and, importantly, communicate with both communities as this long-standing process moves towards a conclusion. Above all, most importantly, I hope they will listen. If people in the House never listen, we will never learn and our ignorance will never drift away.

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

Madam Speaker, again, I want to pick up on the idea of listening.

I want to point out that this is a very serious issue, and the leader of the Conservative Party has been very clear, in terms of how he envisions things such as pipelines. He believes that there is no duty or responsibility to work with indigenous leaders when it comes to pipelines. The Conservatives try to give this false impression that they actually believe in reconciliation.

When it comes to the Conservative Party's self-serving political interests, Conservatives are prepared to forgo indigenous concerns. Could the member explain to people who are following this debate why the leader of the Conservative Party has taken the position that he has on the issue of the pipeline?

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are not here today to talk about Conservatives. We are not here to talk about politics. We are not here to talk about partisan issues, as one of my colleagues spoke of earlier in a question. We are here to talk about Bill C-10.

It was very clear in my speech that a large problem we have is a failure to keep indigenous conversations in this place, and that member's question alludes to exactly that. Oversight is not the issue; leadership is.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I find it the height of hypocrisy to hear the parliamentary secretary and the Liberals talk about their commitment to treaties and reconciliation when they are violating the treaties this very day.

In my riding of Parkland, the Parkland School Division has had to lay off 100 educational assistants and has had tens of millions of dollars in losses because the current Liberal government cut off Jordan's principle funding for at-risk and vulnerable indigenous students. It is not just in my riding; it is across this country. Yellowknife Catholic Schools had to lay off 200 members because of the Liberal government's cuts to indigenous education funding. Could my hon. colleague talk about how the Liberal government is currently failing indigenous people?

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Madam Speaker, the question of Jordan's principle is a conversation that has come up time and time again with trustees from my local area. The question is falling, seemingly, on deaf ears with the government. I have asked time and time again for some consultation, for communication and where we are moving forward.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am just as disgusted with the Liberal parliamentary secretary and agree about the hypocrisy of the Liberals' so-called mandate for reconciliation, which we know is not sincere. I wonder if the member agrees that because we have an important role in the Auditor General, which does make sure that there are audits going on with government operations, maybe we need the role of the commissioner to be able to call out such hypocrisy in this House.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more that hypocrisy is not welcome in the House, but we hear it time and time again.

This is not a true step toward reconciliation. We spoke earlier about $10.6 million over four years: bureaucracy posing as progress. What indigenous peoples are looking for is safer housing and reliable water, but Bill C-10 would not do any of that. It would be just another study and another study, when there are already recommendations in place that we need to fulfill. Let us just do and implement these things. We do not need another bureaucratic prism to do that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will talk about NDP hypocrisy on another day.

One thing I can say is that the legislation is substantial. It is something indigenous leaders have been calling for and assisting with the drafting of. Can the member tell the House again how the member reconciles being in favour of reconciliation with not supporting legislation of this nature?