Debates of Feb. 9th, 2026

Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation Act

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the establishment of another officer of Parliament because it would degrade the work we should be doing as members of Parliament and would not take concrete action to hold the minister accountable for their responsibilities to sign treaties. There is no consequence for not signing treaties in this bill.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise. Once again I would like to take 30 seconds to thank the wonderful people of Northumberland—Clarke for sending me here again, for a third time. It is a privilege of a lifetime and an honour of a lifetime to work for them here in the House of Commons.

Of course, we are here today to talk about Bill C-10. I will go over it relatively briefly, as there has been debate already on this very important bill.

Bill C-10 would establish the independent commissioner of modern treaty implementation as an agent of Parliament. It would create the office of the commissioner to support this role. The mandate of the commissioner would be to conduct reviews and performance audits on federal government institutions' activities related to implementing modern treaties, comprehensive land claims and self-government agreements with indigenous peoples post-1970s, and to monitor and report on how well the federal government fulfills its obligations, commitments and relationships under these treaties.

It would aim to promote accountability; rebuild trust between the Crown and modern treaty partners, indigenous groups and self-governing first nations; and address long-standing, for more than 20 years in many cases, calls for better oversight and implementation of treaty promises.

The commissioner would report the findings to Parliament to help ensure that the government's actions would align with its treaty obligations. The commissioner would not have enforcement powers and would focus on independent reviews, auditing and reporting, rather than on direct intervention.

Of course, Conservatives support modern treaties, and if someone has been reviewing the debate, they would see that my comments would be squarely within the Conservative argument. Of course, we believe in these debates and we believe in the treaties, but we believe ultimately in enforcement; the government needs to take action to rectify wrongs as opposed to having another level of bureaucracy. Let us face it: After a decade of Liberal rule, if agencies, bureaucrats and offices were to create solutions, we would be living in the best economy in the world.

The reality is that, despite the Prime Minister's promises, we languish near the bottom of the G7 economies, even though we have many different government agencies, including a housing agency and a national projects office. I might take a moment to pause and discuss the national projects office. I worked closely with my Liberal counterparts to legislate the creation of the national projects office, but here we are, nearly a year later, at least eight months, and as of yet no projects have been approved. Because of an Order Paper question, we know that the government has spent close to a million dollars, and probably more, because the answer is a little dated now, yet no projects have been approved

There has been a pattern over the last 10 years. The so-called new government is continuing the ways of the so-called old government: If in fact there is a problem, it creates a new government office. Ronald Reagan once said that the closest thing to eternal life in this world is a government office. Despite the fact that we do not have results, we just get more and more government offices that spend more tax dollars without getting results. In fact in some cases we get the exact opposite of the outcome we want, which in this case is the administration of treaties in accordance with legislation and in accordance with the path towards truth and reconciliation. This is because, as we build more and more bureaucracies, the truth gets more and more obscured.

We need to hold civil servants accountable. That starts with the government, quite frankly. We need parliamentarians to step up and not be afraid to criticize the government and not be afraid to criticize the actions of their civil servants and hold them accountable if they are not taking the necessary actions and steps of treaties as we go forward.

Conservatives support treaty rights and the process of reconciliation with Canada's first nations, Inuit and Métis people. In the span of six years, the former Conservative government negotiated five modern treaties. The Liberals have negotiated none in ten years in office. The Office of the Auditor General has conducted over two dozen reports, including audits, since 2005 into treaty negotiations and matters that affect indigenous people.

Rather than demanding accountability from “Ottawa knows best” bureaucrats, the Liberals propose creating new layers of bureaucracy and spending more money at a time when Canadians can ill afford it. I might say, it is a particularly poor time to spend funds that could go directly towards the implementation of treaties. Money could go directly towards helping or assisting first nations, for example in making sure that every indigenous child has access to clean drinking water, which was a pledge made in 2015 by the Liberal government. The Liberals committed that, within five years, every indigenous child would have access to clean drinking water. Here we are in 2026, and that pledge still has not been made good on.

The first step towards truth and reconciliation is the truth part. The second part is living up to our promises, our commitments. If we commit to anyone that we are going to do something, it is the very basis of human nature, of any type of code of morality from any religion, or any secular code, that we need to live up to that commitment. We are here in 2026 talking about a promise that was made in 2015. Before implementing another level of government bureaucracy, why do we not just live up to the promises made in the House to first nations peoples?

Too often, whenever the Liberals see a problem, they see a government agency they need to create. The Liberals should in fact look back at their own track record. Between 2015 and 2017 alone, they created a web of entities: the modern treaty implementation office, assessment of modern treaty implications, performance networks, oversight committees and the reconciliation secretariat.

The government has a very poor record when it comes to modern treaty interpretation and enforcement. The government is, quite frankly, not getting it done. The answer is not another level of bureaucracy. It is not another set of regulations. It is simply the same thing that I am sure all parliamentarians try to instill into their children: that when they make a promise, they live up to that promise. That is what the government has to do. No matter how many levels of bureaucracy are stacked on, it does not necessarily mean that the promises will be lived up to.

What we require are ministers and senior officials who take ownership of their legal duties and processes, whether under modern treaties, self-government agreements or historical agreements. A commissioner will not change the culture; accountability will. In fact, I have written letters to multiple ministers, several about local indigenous issues. The great Alderville First Nation is within boundaries of the Northumberland—Clarke riding. Its people have forwarded issues, and I have still not had a response to those issues.

Instead of responding to Parliament, the accountability that exists in the House, the Liberals are just going to try to obscure and move things over to another bureaucracy, saying, “Look over there. We don't want this responsibility. We don't want this accountability.” Instead they are going to put it on another bureaucracy that will without doubt spend millions, if not more, of Canadian taxpayer dollars without actually making life any better for indigenous people.

We need a government that lives up to its promises and truly walks us down the path of truth and reconciliation, making life better for all Canadians, making life better for all indigenous peoples, making life better for all children across the land and making sure that every indigenous child has access to clean drinking water.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is concerned that there is no enforcement capability in this agency, while at the same time he is bewailing what he considers the creation of a bureaucracy. I would suggest that if enforcement were incorporated, that would mandate an enormous bureaucracy.

In truth, there would be no bureaucracy around the position. This is all about using the bureaucracy of the House of Commons to hold the government to account. The role of the agency would be to be a tool of Parliament so Parliament can be kept informed on an ongoing, live basis of situations that need action and so the House can hold the government to account.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the head of those bureaucracies is the minister. If the minister feels as though they are not getting results, she should walk down to the office and fire them.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the new office will be useful because it can provide us with information on treaty compliance.

However, I wonder whether it should also have coercive powers to ensure treaty compliance. Does my colleague think that is a good idea?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if government officials are not respecting the treaties, then the minister, through accountability, has to hold those folks responsible. If that means finding new people, then do it. If that means firing people who are not actioning the implementation of the treaties, then do it.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this debate is centred around accountability in terms of the minister or the government not honouring or respecting treaties, yet it is already written into the provisions. One of the most powerful and most senior institutions the government has is the Auditor General, who says the government should respect treaties, but the government ignores that. There are oversight committees that have been talking about exactly what is contemplated in this bill, and the government ignores it.

To my colleague, I agree, but does this add or take away from the frustrations that first nations are experiencing in treaty bands today?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, the member would be in a much better position to answer his question than I am. From my experience of talking to the first nations who are located within the riding of Northumberland, one of their big frustrations is the fact that they cannot get answers. They get pushed from one bureaucrat to another. They seek nation-to-nation communications, clarity and answers. They do not need another bureaucracy. They do not need another federal office.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, listening to multiple speeches today, it seems like the main objection is that this creates an additional bureaucracy, but that is ignoring the fact that this is actually built in consultation and collaboration with indigenous leaders and indigenous rights holders.

What would the member say to those indigenous rights holders who are asking for this legislation?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would go back to the original point that ministers have the ability to set in place the accountability and the responsibility within existing legislation. Let us have a culture of accountability and responsibility. Let us implement the treaties. Let us walk, or in fact run, down the path to truth and reconciliation.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have a great nation. I think all of us can agree on that. We and those who came before us have worked to build a country that all Canadians can feel proud to be part of, but we are not perfect. We have not always lived up to our ideals as a nation. One area we have fallen short is when it comes to our obligations to our indigenous people.

Our nation is a relatively young one. The relationship with indigenous people predates the establishment of Canada as an independent country, with first nations negotiating treaties with the British Crown. With Confederation, Canada took on the responsibility for those agreements, agreeing to hold up our end of the bargain. Too often, we have not lived up to our commitments, observing neither the spirit nor the letter of law. I hope that we have learned from past mistakes and that the distrust in the relationships between Canada, indigenous people and those who came here later can be mended.

According to the Canadian Encyclopedia:

Indigenous treaties in Canada are constitutionally recognized agreements between the Crown and Indigenous peoples. Most of these agreements describe exchanges where Indigenous nations agree to share some of their interests in their ancestral lands in return for various payments and promises. On a deeper level, treaties are sometimes understood, particularly by Indigenous people, as sacred covenants between nations that establish a relationship between those for whom Canada is an ancient homeland and those whose family roots lie in other countries. Treaties therefore form the constitutional and moral basis of alliance between Indigenous peoples and Canada.

In our fact-based world, we are sometimes uncomfortable with the idea of anything having a moral basis. The idea of morality, of something being instinctively right or wrong, seems to have gone out of fashion in some circles, which may be why the Liberals have introduced this legislation, Bill C-10, the commissioner for modern treaty implementation act. By creating a new position and accompanying bureaucracy, the Liberals are attempting to deflect from the fact that they have not lived up to their moral obligations. Instead of doing what is right, they are trying to deflect attention away from what they are not doing, which is not living up to their responsibilities under the treaties signed with first nations.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada called on the federal government to “Renew or establish Treaty relationships based on principles of mutual recognition, mutual respect, and shared responsibility for maintaining those relationships into the future.” In order for that to happen, the Liberals must first admit that they have failed to respect the treaties between our country and its first nations.

On October 21, the Auditor General released a report on first nations as a follow-up to the six previous audits done since the Liberals formed government in 2015. Those audits covered a range of programs important to the health and well-being of first nations communities, including programs providing access to primary health care, emergency management services and safe drinking water. Despite Indigenous Services Canada increasing its program spending by 84% in the past six years, there remain significant challenges in improving services and outcomes for first nations communities. For example, there are nine communities with drinking water advisories that have been in place for a decade or longer. How can this be acceptable in Canada in 2025? Whatever happened to Justin Trudeau's promise in 2015 to end drinking water advisories. Sadly, his words seem like more hollow promises, cynically uttered by Liberals to gain votes, knowing they would not deliver on their promises.

According to the Auditor General, Indigenous Services Canada has made unsatisfactory progress in addressing the needs identified in previous reports; 53% of those issues are not resolved. Do the Liberals understand their failure in this matter? Instead of ensuring that the identified needs of indigenous communities are being met, they are now proposing to create more bureaucracy.

We do not need a commissioner for modern treaty implementation; we need a government that understands the needs of Canadians and that lives up to its commitments to them. It should not take another bureaucracy or bureaucrat to ensure that Canada does the right thing. It should not take another bureaucrat to ensure that Canada lives up to its treaty commitments.

Keeping our word used to be a Canadian value. Why does the government think it is necessary to invent a new bureaucracy to ensure that it keeps its word? Is it that the Liberals are so used to making promises and then not keeping them that they need someone to keep them in line? We need to live up to our treaty obligations. We should not need a new government department in order to do that.

It is important to note that the proposed commissioner would deal solely with the modern treaties between Canada and our first nations. The modern treaty era began in 1973, after a Supreme Court of Canada decision that recognized indigenous rights for the first time. The decision led to the first modern treaty, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, signed in 1975. Since then, Canada has negotiated and signed 26 treaties with indigenous groups in Canada, 18 of which contain self-government provisions or associated self-government agreements.

Before 2000, modern treaties were negotiated in the form of comprehensive land claim agreements, and only a few modern treaty partners negotiated self-government agreements separately. Since 2000, all modern treaties have included provisions for self-government. The federal government and modern treaty partners co-developed Canada's collaborative model treaty implementation policy in 2023.

Conservatives support the treaty rights and the process of reconciliation with Canada's first nations, Inuit and Métis people. We recognize that more needs to be done to advance those rights, which include self-determination and self-government. Conservatives, under former prime minister Harper, negotiated five modern treaties in the span of six years. In more than a decade, the Liberals have negotiated none with the 70 indigenous groups currently negotiating with the government.

True reconciliation comes with meeting our commitments to Canada's first nations. We should not need a new level of bureaucracy to make sure that, as a nation, we keep the agreements we sign. The Auditor General has pointed out where we are failing in our treatment of indigenous peoples. Years are going by, and problems are not being solved. No wonder reconciliation seems no closer than it was a decade ago. Rather than demanding accountability from “Ottawa knows best” bureaucrats, the Liberals are proposing to create a new layer of bureaucracy, which of course means spending more money at a time when Canadians can ill afford it.

There is no need for the bill. Rather than create a commissioner for modern treaty implementation, why do the ministers and departments responsible for treaty negotiation and implementation not do their jobs?

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

Mr. Speaker, if we look at what indigenous communities themselves would like, we see that the support of having an independent officer of the House of Commons seems to be a very strong step forward with respect to both reconciliation and a higher sense of accountability and transparency. Why does the Conservative Party not support the independence of that agent's answering to Parliament?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what is appointing bureaucrats going to do? There are no results being delivered by the government as far as this file goes. There has been nothing done and no progress made in the last 10 years. What is the point of appointing someone? It is just to add another bureaucracy. I do not think the community is looking for that. The community is looking for action and looking for results, and unless those results are delivered, there is no point in adding another bureaucracy.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen overwhelming support for this bill from first nations. I believe that the commissioner will be a watchdog who will conduct research and provide us with information so that we can enforce the treaties if the government fails to do so.

That said, I think the commissioner should also have coercive powers. What does my colleague think?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the debate here is between delivering results and showing signals that really do not deliver anything to the people. The community wants results. It wants more action. It wants to see that things are progressing properly, and some of the issues the community is facing need to be resolved. That is what the community is looking for.

How to approach that, in our opinion as the Conservative Party of Canada, is that we need to see results and we need to make sure that the people responsible for these files, the minister and the department, do their jobs.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his great speech on Bill C-10. He could not have outlined it better.

What we are really looking for from the government is a bit of action on a whole host of things. This bill is just adding bureaucracy instead of getting the government out of the way and doing the things that it says it is going to do, much the same way as it says it is going to build pipelines and then does not build pipelines. The government said it was going to build national infrastructure at speeds unseen before and we are not seeing this. Once again, we see the relationship with the first nations in this country. This is just an appeasement, just a smoke and mirrors kind of thing.

Does the member have any comments on that?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in the last decade, the government has not negotiated a single treaty with the indigenous community. That tells us a lot. There are 70 groups right now negotiating with the government. They are going to continue to negotiate and negotiate, but no one, especially the government, is showing any results. The government is not showing us the truth of what it is doing. Unless we reach that point, it is really pointless to continue developing bureaucracy after bureaucracy. I believe the community is looking for action. It is looking for results and that is where the Conservative Party is standing on this issue.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to disagree about the importance of the implementation of this commissioner to hold government to account. Often, treaties have been signed and those agreements have not been implemented. It has been uneven, inconsistent and ignored. We heard that this morning from Chief John Jack from Huu-ay-aht First Nations and Chief Wilfred Cootes from Uchucklesaht. They are calling for the commissioner to hold the government to account to ensure that when treaties are signed, they are actually implemented.

Why are the Conservatives going against the calls to action by indigenous peoples in this country who want to work nation to nation to support their people and build a better, healthier Canada?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in the system that we have for our democracy, I believe that Parliament should keep the government in line. If we need to add layers and layers to keep the government in place, then what are we doing here? Why are we here? We are here to represent the people and defend their rights, and I think Parliament should have the power to do that, not another new bureaucracy.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, The Budget; the hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City, Natural Resources.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation. What would it do? The enactment would provide for the appointment of a commissioner of modern treaty implementation. The commissioner's job would be to conduct reviews and performance audits of the activities of the government related to the implementation of modern treaties, or rather, the government's failure to implement treaties. This is a failure that the Office of the Auditor General, another agency of Parliament, has pointed out in numerous reports. For years, the Auditor General has been shouting from the treetops that the government must take the treaty process seriously, and for 10 years, the Liberals have done nothing. They have dragged their feet.

Admittedly, this is not a problem of just the last 10 years; it has been brewing since the early days of Confederation. However, I must highlight that under the Conservative government of Stephen Harper, Canada negotiated five modern treaties. Since then, in the last 10 years, there have been zero, which is the problem.

The need to expedite treaties, as I said, goes back to the early days of our history, to the 1850s in British Columbia, when the British Crown claimed sovereignty over Vancouver Island and the mainland, what we now call British Columbia. There were some early treaties under Governor James Douglas, the Douglas treaties, over Vancouver Island. After that, subsequent governors and colonial legislatures dropped the ball.

In 1871, British Columbia became part of the Canadian Confederation, and at that time, the federal government took over some of the responsibility for treaty negotiations under section 91 of the British North America Act, but it too dropped the ball. This is continuing right now. The Liberals are continuing not to pick up the ball, not to run with it.

What are the Liberals doing? They are hiding behind this proposed legislation. They want to appoint a commissioner to take a look at all of this, to see why things have not been happening. This is another unnecessary bill from a government that is lacking creativity. It is becoming a crisis.

The recent decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court in the Cowichan Tribes case underlines what happens when the Crown does not follow through with its commitments to respect indigenous rights. What do we get? We get community unrest, economic uncertainty and confusion. What did the judge say in that case? She said that aboriginal title is superior to fee simple title, which is a basic form of land ownership that everyone understands and that forms the very basis of our modern capitalist system. Our economy, banking system, financial security, home ownership and retirement planning are all based on the concept of fee simple.

Now people and businesses in the Richmond area, where these lands are, as well as right across the whole province, are worried that their fee simple title is not as secure as they thought it was. What is important too is that banks and financial institutions are also starting to doubt the indefeasibility of fee simple title. We have heard of some big real estate deals collapsing on account of banks feeling nervous. The provincial government steps forward and says it will guarantee those loans, but that is not the solution. The solution is to deal properly and effectively with the first nations people and enter into treaties.

The land at the centre of this dispute is not in some remote area of British Columbia where the land is still owned by the Crown. No, it is right in the heart of metro Vancouver. There are commercial properties there, shopping malls, residential neighbourhoods and even a jet fuel tank station supplying nearby Vancouver International Airport. Quite frankly, Vancouver cannot operate without these lands staying pretty much exactly the way they are, so we have a very big problem.

What is the solution? This speech is not about how to resolve the Cowichan lands challenges. I have some ideas, but that is not what we are talking about. Today we are talking about how we go forward with implementing modern-day treaties so we avoid ongoing issues like this and the economic uncertainty that arises. I raise this case only to point out how important and urgent it is that we move forward.

Throughout B.C., there is a lot of work to be done. I am thinking of metro Vancouver and first nations communities in highly urbanized areas, like the Kwantlen First Nation in my home community of Fort Langley, or the Katzie First Nation in the northern part of my community, or the Semiahmoo in neighbouring White Rock. None of them have treaties, and they are losing confidence in the treaty process, so I welcome the debate, as people in my home province are concerned.

However, it is not all negative. There is good news. In British Columbia, there have been some notable success stories in the ongoing quest to implement modern treaties. I want to talk about the Tsawwassen First Nation settlement of 2009.

The Tsawwassen First Nation land, like the Cowichan land, is in metro Vancouver, surrounded by very valuable land. It is close to the port of Vancouver and the B.C. ferry terminal. There is a lot of good farmland there as well. This is one of the five modern treaties that were successfully negotiated during the Harper years, and it is a leading example of what can be done in an urbanized setting.

The treaty transferred 724 hectares of land to the Tsawwassen First Nation community, which now holds it in fee simple. It is something they can take to the bank, which is not something they could have done under the Indian Act. The Tsawwassen First Nation community is acting on that. Its people have developed the land so that it is bringing prosperity to their community. They have a couple of very large shopping malls and industrial properties supporting the nearby port, and there is still lots of farmland available. Of the 724 hectares, I believe 500 is still farmland. This is very rich farmland, right in the Fraser River estuary, which supports Canadian food security and sovereignty.

We have two examples coming out of British Columbia. One is a very good one, the Tsawwassen First Nation, and one is not so good, the Cowichan Tribes case. I suppose the latter might also be a good example of what could go wrong, underlining the urgency of moving forward.

To get back to the main topic, Bill C-10, an act respecting the commission for modern treaty implementation, people who were expecting that the bill would actually accelerate the treaty process in British Columbia and throughout Canada will be disappointed. The bill is simply about setting up a new bureaucracy to keep an eye on existing bureaucracies that have failed time and again to get the job done.

In my years in this Parliament, I have observed time and again how the Liberals act. Their politics is performative politics. They want to appear to be doing something about whatever is being debated in the Parliament of the day, the issues of the period. If major projects are being held up because of federal bureaucracy getting in the way, then let us set up a Major Projects Office. If housing is unaffordable and new houses are not being built, then we have an office for that too. Now, if indigenous treaty rights are not being respected, then let us set up a commission. However, it is not necessary. The Liberals appear to be doing something, but in fact, the bill before us would do very little to move the needle forward.

I have just three words for the Liberals: “Do your job.” They should stop the performative arts, stop preening in front of the cameras, roll up their sleeves and, finally, for once, do the hard stuff.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat unfortunate that Conservatives do not understand or appreciate the importance of having an agent of Parliament being assigned in this area. I think it would do wonders in terms of everything from the modern-day treaties to the whole movement towards reconciliation. I think they are underestimating the importance of reconciliation by not necessarily supporting Bill C-10.

Does the member believe that there is any connection between reconciliation and the idea of having an agent of Parliament to deal with modern-day treaties?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, we already have an agent that is responsible for that. That agent is called the Auditor General. The unfortunate part is that the Liberals have not been taking the reports from the Office of the Auditor General seriously. That applies to many matters, including when reports comment on their lack of action on indigenous rights and settling treaties. That should have been done a long time ago. It is time for them to do their job.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, representatives from that side of the House, the government, claim that the Conservatives have no idea what we are really talking about, when what we are talking about is accountability.

I was a chief councillor. I was a chairman of the treaty negotiations. I was actually part of First Nations Summit, an advocacy group based out of Vancouver of all chief negotiators. I know of the six oversight committees that are actually fighting for basic accountability. There is also the Auditor General, the highest, most powerful, basically non-political group in Canada, who has been telling the government that it has to respect treaties. The only group in the House that does not respect accountability for treaty implementation is the government. Would my colleague agree that basically there are enough provisions in the treaty, as well as organizations that are demanding accountability from the government—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Langley Township—Fraser Heights.