Debates of Nov. 28th, 2025

Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation Act

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my colleague.

With all due respect, what I would say to the Assembly of First Nations is that the government must pass laws itself to monitor it and ensure that it is doing the work it is supposed to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question for my colleague is about indigenous relations.

I know that there are several indigenous nations in her riding and that, historically, relations have been difficult. This means that it may have been challenging to built a relationship of trust over the years.

In this context, we see that the government deciding to go back on its word—

[The Acting Speaker, Dane Lloyd]

The member for Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan has 10 seconds to respond.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the current government is less interested in indigenous issues. As an elected official, I find it rather appalling to see—

[The Acting Speaker, Dane Lloyd]

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Nunavut.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, Bill C-10 is a reproduction of Bill C-77, which was originally tabled in the last Parliament. As we did at that time, we support this bill in its current form, as it is a reproduction.

I would like to thank, first of all, Aluki Kotierk, who was the former president of Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated. She worked hard to ensure this bill would be introduced to help make sure that modern treaty obligations are being implemented. I also thank the Liberals for putting it in the calendar so we can inch it forward toward getting it to committee to make any amendments to help make sure the issues posed during debate are addressed.

Bill C-10 has been in the works for more than 20 years. Indigenous modern treaty partners have been working toward this. They have sought the independent oversight and accountability mechanisms of the federal government on modern treaty implementation.

There are some reasons we support this bill. First, it is a safeguard. Second, it would help ensure accountability and would put Canada in line with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous peoples have been partners in the creation of this bill, and it would advance reconciliation and self-determination. I think helping to realize the full potential of modern treaties is an important foundation of this bill.

Just to briefly explain what I mean by it being a safeguard for indigenous modern treaty partners, it would help implement specific modern treaty obligations. Canada is currently implementing 27 modern treaties. Of these 27 modern treaties, six include only a comprehensive land claim settlement agreement, one includes only self-government provisions and is unrelated to any land claim, and 20 address both comprehensive land claims and self-government in some way.

The first modern treaty was signed in 1975, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. The Nunavut Agreement was signed in 1993. I had the pleasure of being there when it was signed. The Whitecap Dakota Nation in 2023 is the latest.

Accountability would be seen if this bill is implemented by ensuring that the federal government meet its treaty obligations. We need to be reminded of the context of why this bill is particularly important. It is because the Liberal government is ignoring the rights and title of indigenous people in resource extraction and economic development in the name of nation building, specifically through Bill C-5.

Modern treaties are a constitutionally entrenched commitment between the Crown and indigenous partners to build true nation-to-nation, Inuit-Crown and government-to-government relationships. Establishing the commissioner would bring Canada in line with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, honouring commitments and advancing reconciliation with indigenous peoples. An independent commissioner with audit and reporting powers could hold government departments to account and overcome long-standing inertia in treaty implementation.

As I said earlier, this bill was created in consultation with indigenous modern treaty partners. Indeed, they asked for this legislation.

When Bill C-77 was originally tabled, there had been engagement with over 130 indigenous groups, including indigenous modern treaty partners, indigenous groups negotiating modern treaties, self-government agreement holders, national indigenous organizations, and provincial and territorial governments. I met with the Land Claims Agreements Coalition previously, as well as others, and there was overwhelming support for the passage of this bill.

Bill C-10 would advance reconciliation and self-determination through oversight and accountability of the federal government. Modern treaties create stability and predictability over rights, lands and interests. For example, the signing of the Nunavut Agreement included the creation of the Nunavut Impact Review Board, a strengthened role for hunters and trappers, and the important signing of a draft Nunavut land use plan. The bill would help realize the full potential of modern treaties and self-government arrangements.

About 1.8 million people self-identified as indigenous in the 2021 census, representing about 5% of the population. There needs to be better and timelier treaty implementation that would reduce legal disputes and uncertainty, enabling indigenous economic participation.

Indigenous gross domestic product has posted positive growth every year since 2012. It grew from $41.7 billion in 2012 to $54.1 billion in 2019. Indigenous entrepreneurship is on the rise, with self-employment rates among first nations, Métis and Inuit having increased since 2016. Indigenous entrepreneurs contribute approximately $48.9 billion to the Canadian economy, a figure that could increase if systemic barriers such as limited access to federal procurement opportunities are addressed.

I would like to take this time to address some of the Conservatives' concerns about what they are calling additional bureaucracy.

The bill would create a new office with costs, but it would include co-operation with the Office of the Auditor General to reduce duplication, possibly allowing for efficiency gains. There would be improved certainty and accountability around treaty obligations, which could de-risk investment, particularly in northern and resource regions, supporting project finance and partnerships.

As a reminder, Bill C-5 created new bureaucracy, two new offices, yet the Conservatives supported Bill C-5 and to have it expedited. For them to call into question whether the bill before us is appropriate because it would create a commissioner position to ensure that treaty obligations are being met is a serious concern that we must address and that can be addressed at the committee stage.

New Democrats stand in partnership with the indigenous modern treaty partners who have been consulted and are advocating for the creation of this new office of a commissioner for modern treaty implementation.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for her work at the indigenous and northern affairs committee when she was there.

She talked a lot about why it is important for us to have oversight when we are looking at modern-day treaties and the things that Canada has agreed to. When I was speaking with some of the stakeholders who have been pushing for this, they said we really needed accountability and really needed people to ensure we are moving forward on implementing the treaty promises we make.

The member opposite talked a little about economic outputs and ensuring that indigenous people are part of the growth that is happening in Canada. In budget 2025, there were some significant items for her riding of Nunavut. I am wondering if she could talk about how indigenous people in her riding and across Canada are becoming a big part of the economic growth of this country.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, Bill C-10 is particularly important, because both Liberals and Conservatives, having been governing parties, have not fully implemented their obligations to treaty implementation. We need someone outside the Auditor General's office for that.

The Auditor General does important work to make sure that operations are being held accountable, yet their work is only focused on what can be seen from an administrative point of view. The commissioner would make sure that implementation and legal obligations are being met. This office would help make sure there is a targeted approach to making sure that obligations are being met so we see economic benefits stemming from modern treaty partners.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, part of what the bill would do, as I understand, is imbue the commissioner with maintaining the honour of the Crown, which is an integral legal principle in indigenous-Crown relations.

Is the member comfortable with having the government delegate to a bureaucrat part of its responsibility to maintain the honour of the Crown? Should that responsibility not stay with the minister and with cabinet?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, there would be no delegation to the commissioner regarding that.

I do hope the member educates himself in a better way, to make sure that the commissioner and the office of the commissioner would investigate, would analyze, and would look at what is being implemented by the federal government, whose sole responsibility is to ensure that the honour of the Crown is being met by all governments.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nunavut, whom I hold in high regard. I used to work with her on the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, and she obviously cares a lot about this issue.

There are several indigenous groups that participated in the consultations on this bill. I would like to know what their concerns are in terms of the possibility that the bill may not be passed.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I share my sense of friendship with the MP as well.

What we have seen from the Liberal government, for example in working with the Conservatives on expediting Bill C-5, is that there are real concerns that any government will continue to violate the rights of indigenous peoples, including the right to free, prior and informed consent. We saw that most recently with the Prime Minister's signing an MOU with the Premier of Alberta without the free, prior and informed consent.

The treaty commissioner would need to be able to monitor these kinds of situations and make sure UNDRIP is being implemented regarding modern treaties as well as any obligations that any government has towards its fiduciary duties towards first nations, Inuit and Métis.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, today we are discussing a fundamental principle: the relationship between the state and indigenous peoples. This relationship is not an exercise in bureaucracy. It does not call for a new organizational chart to be created or a new position to be established in Ottawa. It is a relationship based on honour, based on commitments made and based on the ability of the government to live up to its word.

However, for the past 10 years, the government has been doing exactly the opposite. It has made more promises, expanded the bureaucracy, hired more public servants, spent more money and achieved fewer results. Even now, with Bill C‑10, I get the feeling that the same mistakes are being repeated. The Liberals want to create a new commissioner, they want more bureaucracy, they want another layer of oversight and they want to increase spending. It is as though every time the bureaucracy fails, the solution is more bureaucracy.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. We had the opportunity to hear from several commissioners who all told us pretty much the same thing: They are underfunded and they do not always have an easy relationships with the government. There is a discrepancy between the facts and perceptions. Here are the facts: A new commissioner would not be able to push the government to take action because, basically, the government rarely listens to commissioners. More oversight and less action is not a real solution.

The government would have us believe that creating a commissioner for modern treaty implementation would be an easy fix, but let us face the facts: Commissioners do not have any binding authority. They cannot compel any department to honour treaties. They cannot impose sanctions, allocate resources or force action. All they can do is observe inaction. In other words, they monitor. When a treaty is not respected, the first nations will still be the ones who have to go to court, even though they have no real resources to do so.

Creating a new commissioner position is tantamount to admitting that we have not been doing our job for years. Yet another report is not suddenly going to change a system that is already failing to meet its obligations. The Liberals are just giving the illusion of taking action, while enjoying the comfort of bureaucracy, which is something they have been doing for the past 10 years.

I will give an example. In the past 10 years, 100,000 public servants have been hired within the government. Every year, more than $20 billion is spent on external consultants. The public service has never been bigger, yet public services, housing, immigration, finance, infrastructure and indigenous programs have never been more ineffective. In the wake of this colossal failure, the Liberals say that they have the solution. They are going to create a new office, more bureaucracy, another commissioner and yet another structure. It feels like the more obstacles, the better. It is a madhouse full of paper pushers. The goal is to find busy work to keep someone in an office when, instead, resources should be sent onto the ground to provide support to people and try to understand them.

When I do not know everything there is to know about a given issue, which happens regularly because, as a new member, I have a lot to learn, I always call people on the ground. I call people in Montmorency—Charlevoix and I call experts. In this case, I called people in indigenous communities. I want their perspective. I want to hear their opinion and to hear about specific details that may have escaped me. This way, I can improve my personal skill set. I think that, by working on the ground, we can truly improve things the right way and find meaningful solutions.

Yesterday, I called someone I know well, who is on a band council and who took the time to read the bill, the structures it proposes and Ottawa's explanation. He said, “Gabriel, we don't want oversight. What we want is internal capacity. We want to be able to take action right here at home. Give us the tools, not a commissioner. Give us programs to develop expertise within our band councils. We want to be autonomous, not controlled.”

I think that makes a lot of sense, but he said something else that I think should resonate here in the House. He said, “The problem is not a lack of oversight, it's that the government is getting in the way. It needs to stop interfering in everything. It needs to stop saying that it knows how to manage our communities better than we do. It should teach us, support us, guide us, but stop trying to control everything.”

These are not my words, they are the words of a first nations person who works directly on a band council. This is what communities are saying. This is what chiefs want. This is what the government seems to have trouble hearing.

Modern treaties are powerful tools when they are implemented. The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, signed in 1975, was the first modern treaty. Modern treaties have demonstrated that rights can be recognized, local institutions can be created, indigenous education and health systems can be established, and regional governance can exist.

They have also taught us a valuable lesson, namely that even the best treaties in the world are worthless if the government does not implement them. A number of modern treaties have been negotiated over the years. In fact, five modern treaties were negotiated in six years under the Harper government. Over the past 10 years, under the Liberals, there have been none. Conservatives believe in and support modern treaties.

What we do not support is the idea that creating more bureaucracy is going to solve the problem. It was not a lack of oversight that has caused the problems. Rather, it has been a lack of enforcement, a lack of real political will and a lack of accountability within government departments. Now the government is saying that a commissioner could be the answer. Well, that is not the case at all. Quite frankly, given recent history, it is a bit of an insult to people's intelligence to suggest that more bureaucracy is going to be an effective solution.

The real issue is having more internal capacity, not more external oversight. What indigenous communities say they really want are tools, effective programs, resources, training, transfer of jurisdiction, financial stability, predictability and genuine autonomy. In fact, I think what they want is pretty much the same thing that society in general wants: more control over their own lives, more independence and less management by government.

What indigenous communities want is the ability to administer their own affairs and take charge of their own development. They do not want to be managed by Ottawa like public service subcontractors. True autonomy is not about being watched. True autonomy is about being able to act.

Unfortunately, according to the Liberal philosophy, the state always knows better than the individual. The Liberals are incapable of designing a Canada where people make their own decisions, where communities manage themselves, where local governments are responsible and where indigenous institutions are respected.

According to their ideological vision, Liberals believe that Ottawa has to monitor, has to govern, has to dictate, has to comment, has to oversee. They want to teach from above rather than support from the side. They want to control rather than guide. I think they have forgotten that being a government means supporting the people. It is said that the foundation of our democracy lies in our institutions. A foundation is not above the people. A foundation is below them. In fact, if the foundation were put on the roof, the house would be quite rickety indeed. Perhaps the government members should keep in mind that they are here to support, to listen and to bring considerations from people on the ground to the House for discussion.

Bill C-10 ultimately represents more bureaucracy. However, there is a very logical alternative. Ministers should be made accountable. Each minister should report to Parliament on treaty implementation. Treaty obligations should be incorporated into ministerial mandates; no more excuses and vague responsibilities. The government should fund the internal capacity of communities to train, support, transfer and stabilize, not just supervise and control. We should be reducing bureaucracy, not trying to increase it. That is not a solution. Finally, the government should get out of the way.

As my friend from the band council said to me, we need to support them, not take over. Indigenous communities do not need a commissioner. The government needs a mirror. The best solution is simple. The government needs to do its job, keep its promises, meet its obligations and let the communities govern themselves.

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

Madam Speaker, I find it somewhat ironic. Here we are talking about Bill C-10. The Conservatives have made it very clear they do not want it and are going to vote against it, even though indigenous community leaders want the legislation to pass. The Conservatives want to continue the filibuster.

Then we witnessed this week the leader of the Conservative Party's saying outright that we do not need to consult with indigenous people and that if we want a pipeline, it is no problem at all; we should just build the pipeline without caring what the Province of B.C. has to say or what indigenous people have to say in regard to it.

Does the member not agree that the Conservative Party leader seems to be out of tune with what reconciliation is all about?

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is always very interesting to hear my colleague opposite quote his own boss, who says “Who cares?” more often than we do. Yesterday, I spoke to someone who is on a band council. This is what he told me: “Never forget that every nation has its values and every nation has a different culture.”

The Liberals tell us that they consulted everyone, but the reality is that this is a complex issue and that we need to work on the ground, not by putting more people in an office, not by having more administration, not by listening less. We have to be on the ground to work because we actually do care.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to explore this Conservative philosophy with my colleague to make sure I understand. Today, we are being told that we must respect the internal capacity of indigenous peoples, equip them, and allow them to develop.

However, yesterday's announcement was about a pipeline project out west. The Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs says that it does not want the pipeline and was not consulted. The Conservative Party is not only supporting the Liberal government on this pipeline, but it is also saying that it needs to happen faster.

Is that what my colleague meant by respect for the internal capacity of indigenous peoples?

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, respecting communities means listening to them and ensuring that we work with them. From what I am being told on the ground, for the past 11 years, treaties have not been signed or respected and there has been no accountability. I think the first thing to do when we want to ensure that communities are respected is to take action and keep our word. The Conservatives will always be there to do just that.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, other than the concern about increasing bureaucracy, I do not hear any real concerns from the Conservatives about what the problems with Bill C-10 are. Currently, the only way to make sure that the implementation of modern treaties is resolved is through court cases.

I wonder if the member agrees that having a commissioner to monitor the implementation of legal treaties is a much better way than long disputes through the courts.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, my answer will be very simple.

First, it is up to ministers to make sure that they are doing what they said they were going to do. There is no point in appointing a commissioner who has no power, unlike a minister.

Second, I disagree. I did not just talk about bureaucracy. What I said was that we want to make improvements in terms of program effectiveness, resources, training, transfer of jurisdiction, financial stability, predictability and true autonomy. The Conservatives are proposing to work with people and give them real access to resources, not just to forms and bureaucracy. The idea that something will happen on the ground because there is new state intervention is just smoke and mirrors.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I do not think the member understood my question, so I will ask it again.

I was asking about how to resolve disputes. Currently, there is no other mechanism to resolve disputes between modern treaties and the federal government. The only system is through the courts.

I wonder if the member agrees that a better way to resolve disputes between the federal government and the first modern treaty holders is to have the commissioner position.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, once again, I will give a very quick answer to the question.

The Ethics Commissioner is having a hard time ensuring that our Prime Minister is not breaking his own ethics rules. I do not think that a new commissioner is going to solve anything for first nations. That is not going to help us move forward. If we want to move forward, we need to work together, keep our word and make ministers responsible for their decisions.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House and speak on behalf of my constituents in York—Durham.

While I am from York—Durham, which is a riding in the greater Toronto area, what people may not realize is that I actually represent two first nations communities: the Chippewas of Georgina Island first nation and the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation. Both were included in my new riding of York—Durham during the last redistribution, so that is part of the great pleasure I have had as the new member for this new riding of York—Durham. Previously, the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation was part of another member's riding, and, similarly, the Chippewas of Georgina Island first nation were part of another member's riding. Now I have the pleasure of representing both first nations.

Part of my job and my experience as a new member has been doing some outreach to each first nation, as I do to communities across my riding, to get to know them and their issues. I have had the pleasure of getting to know both bands, their leadership and their communities more generally; in particular, there are Chief Donna Big Canoe of the Chippewas and Chief Kelly LaRocca of the Mississaugas.

I had the pleasure of attending the Mississaugas' powwow this past summer to learn a little bit more about their history and their culture. What I have learned so far is that both first nations in my riding are striving to be modern and effective bands that work toward the good of their residents and the prosperity of not only their communities but also the larger community. For the Mississaugas, that is in Port Perry; for the Chippewas, that is the town of Georgina. I am happy to report that there are strong relationships between both municipalities and the first nations side by side.

I really view my role, in this case, as giving assistance to first nations, as I give to other municipalities, and being a good representative for them in Ottawa. I have learned that they are both entrepreneurial and community-minded. For example, the Mississaugas are the majority owners of the Minogi corporation, a new clean energy investment company, and the Voyager Services Limited company, a provider of nuclear and energy construction solutions. Last year, those companies announced collaboration with the Cameco company, a marquee Canadian company. To me that just shows the entrepreneurship of the first nations in my community, specifically the Mississaugas in that case.

The Chippewas have long operated the Island View Business Centre and then more recently opened a new business venture with the Seven Generations Commercial Centre and GoIn Fuels. I had an opportunity to help cut a ribbon there earlier this summer. They are not free from difficulties, like many communities. In the case of the Chippewas, the band is located on an island. That presents significant challenges for transportation and health care.

Unfortunately, there are great ironies in Liberal green energy policies, carbon taxes, eco-justice or whatever other name it has been called; they have sort of been falling away from that. When the minister was still in cabinet at least, they were pursuing these policies. One of the great ironies of that is that transportation to the Chippewas of Georgina Island is fuelled by a ferry that runs on diesel fuel, which was subject to the carbon tax. There was no ability for members of the band and community to get back and forth to the island other than on a ferry fuelled by diesel fuel. They just had to pay more out of pocket because of that carbon tax. That is an outstanding issue that the government has failed to address and has failed to make proper compensation for, in my opinion.

Now, being in Ontario, these bands have a different history than those that are subject to modern treaties, of course, because both bands were subject to treaties that existed in Ontario. There are two significant treaties: the Coldwater-Narrows treaty and the Williams Treaties. Both are now largely settled. They were largely settled by the previous Conservative government. That is a bit of a trend we have heard about today in the speeches.

It is clear that under the previous Conservative government, there was movement; there was political will to engage in good-faith treaty negotiation and settlements and, at least in my community, that resulted in the Coldwater-Narrows treaty and the completion of most of the Williams treaty settlement.

However, when it comes to Bill C-10, I just have one question: Why can the government not just do its job? It seems that every time there is a problem, the government for the last 10 years, and especially the new old government, seems to create some new bureaucracy. We have a problem in housing, so we need another bureaucracy. We have a problem with modern treaties and enforcing them, so we will create a new bureaucracy. However, another bureaucrat will not tell us anything we do not already know. For all the lip service that the government has paid to indigenous issues for the last 10 years, it remains, in my opinion, as fractured as it has ever been. There are, in fact, dozens of Auditor General reports from the last decade touching on aboriginal people's issues in Canada. Perhaps we should start with dealing with those before we create a new commissioner to give us more reports.

I want to focus for a bit of time on the supposed mandate of this new bureaucrat. The first mandate in Bill C-10 is “strengthening the relationships between the Government of Canada and Indigenous modern treaty partners”. As I said, I do not think this bureaucrat would tell us anything we do not already know. Is it not the minister's job to maintain good relationships with indigenous and aboriginal peoples across Canada? Is that not something she is capable of doing? Is it not the Governor in Council's job, acting through cabinet and the Prime Minister, to maintain those good relationships? Why can they not do that themselves?

The second mandate for this commissioner would be, “fulfilling the Government of Canada’s obligations under, and achieving the objectives of, modern treaties, these obligations and objectives being interpreted in a broad and purposive manner”. Of course the government should fulfill its obligations under a treaty. Indeed, it should fulfill its obligations and agreements with all Canadians. When the government says it will do something, it should do something. However, what is missing from this objective is any reference to protecting the rights of the Crown contained in any modern treaty. These treaties are two-way streets. They create rights and obligations, and I do not see how this commissioner would do the latter.

The third mandate would be, “upholding the honour of the Crown in respect of the timely and effective implementation of modern treaties.” Just a moment ago, I was accused of not having read the bill, but I assure the member for Nunavut that I did read the bill, and it does say that the commissioner's mandate would be to uphold the honour of the Crown. This is a fundamental aspect of aboriginal law that every law student learns about: that the honour of the Crown is always at stake in our discussions and interactions with aboriginal peoples. It can give rise to different duties in different circumstances, but what constitutes honourable conduct will vary in the circumstances. For example, the Crown should not act dishonourably or engage in sharp dealings, and because treaties are not simply contracts, a generous interpretation is necessary. It gives rise to the duty to consult, of course, and requires diligent good-faith implementation of treaties.

There are other aspects of the honour of the Crown, but the ultimate purpose, in my view, is toward the reconciliation of pre-existing aboriginal peoples and the assertion of Canadian sovereignty in the modern era. The honour of the Crown is fundamental in dealings between the federal and provincial governments and aboriginal peoples. In my humble view, at least, this is not something that can or should be delegated to a bureaucrat, a mere functionary. Where is the minister? Where is cabinet? Where is the Prime Minister? The government cannot and should not abdicate its responsibilities to functionaries. This is an important aspect, and it is incumbent on the minister, who is responsible for her department, to maintain the honour of the Crown, not on a commissioner.

Even if we accept that such a position is necessary or desirable, which we do not on this side of the House, in my view, the new bureaucrat would be missing a key power, and that is the power to do anything about new modern treaties. There would be no power to engage in negotiations; there would be no power to do any of the things that the government says should be done with respect to reconciliation. Therefore, we are left to conclude that this new position would, again, be mere window dressing and mere lip service. This is a continuing departure from parliamentary accountability and parliamentary supremacy, and it is a troubling trend of the Liberal government. In my view, the minister must be responsible for these relations, for their successes and their failures. The government must be responsible, not a new bureaucrat.

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

Madam Speaker, what has become very clear is that the Conservative Party is going to do what it can to prevent this particular piece of legislation from passing. That is really quite unfortunate, because the legislation is actually indigenous-led. The Conservatives' continued refusal to allow it to go committee is going to make things very difficult, and they know that.

In addition, there are the actions earlier this week of the leader of the Conservative Party, who takes the approach that we do not need to consult with indigenous people and with provinces when it comes to major building projects to build Canada strong.

I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts as to why the Conservative leader is behaving more like a little dictator than like a leader of an official opposition.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, for those who are offended, I will recall the word “dictator”, but the point is still made.