Debates of Feb. 9th, 2026

Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation Act

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for her experience with indigenous negotiations, land claims and treaty negotiations.

I think the question on this side of the House is not about the purpose of the commissioner but about the reality of the minister's not being held responsible for not implementing a treaty. Everything in a treaty has provisions in terms of what the Crown should be doing to be an equal treaty partner. Even the bill we are talking about today says nothing that would compel the minister to honour a constitutionally protected, documented treaty.

Is there any type of language that says that the government would actually uphold the honour of the Crown in terms of implementing treaties that have been in existence for the last 30 or 40 years?

[Mandy Gull-Masty, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge that the minister would still have the obligation to respond to the partnership. This would not be done away with. The supplementation of a commissioner's being put into place is with regard to the reporting. It is the oversight. It is to ensure that the verification and the validity of the position of the partner would also be tabled to Parliament.

In essence, I believe that it would ensure the strengthening of findings, in terms of the implementation process of the claim. It would be supplementary to the process. I want to ensure that when we are developing the protocol, it is understood by the partner that while they would continue to work with the minister and the federal department, the commissioner would be there to further enhance accountability should there be a gap or a concern for discretion or a pathway forward.

It is something I think would further enhance accountability directly to Parliament. This is what our partners are looking for.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister, who I am sure will be pleased to know that I grew up in her riding.

I would like to know how the government will ensure that the role of commissioner is not politicized. I will give the example of another independent officer of Parliament, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is appointed for seven years through a process similar to the one in Bill C-10. When the Minister of Finance and National Revenue became unhappy with the PBO's findings, he started undermining the PBO's credibility in the media and in committee saying that his was just one of many opinions. That is not to mention what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue went so far as to do.

We know that, after seven years, the government did not replace the PBO by consulting with the other parties. It replaced the PBO temporarily and is looking for a new one, without any consent from the other parties. It is politicizing the role of an independent officer, and the appointment process for this commissioner seems remarkably similar to the process for appointing the PBO.

How can the minister assure us that the government will not politicize the appointment of commissioners like it is trying to do right now with the PBO?

[Mandy Gull-Masty, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I also grew up in the riding. It is a treaty territory. The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement is recognized as the first modern treaty.

I think that this process reinforces partnership because I come from a nation that has been submitting reports directly to Parliament, not just to an officer of Parliament, for 50 years. We ourselves chose two commissioners who spoke to Parliament on our behalf.

Philip Awashish, Bill Namagoose and all the people on the Cree-Naskapi Commission truly demonstrated that, when nations have independence and the ability to report to Parliament, they get to define the process, the relationship and the approach to the work. That is why I strongly support Bill C-10.

My nation has been doing this work for 50 years. I am proud to say that this is an exercise based on respect for our culture, our identity and our language. Our reports are prepared in the Cree language and presented to several levels of government, not just Parliament. This gives us the opportunity to introduce ourselves and explain what the agreement is and how we work with the different levels of government.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-10, an act regarding modern treaty implementation. At the outset, I want to say I am very proud to represent the Treaty No. 6 first nations in Alberta, including the Enoch Cree Nation and the Paul First Nation, as well as the area of the Michel First Nation, which remains the only first nation that was forcibly and involuntarily enfranchised in 1958. It remains a very sensitive issue to this day. It is still seeking a return to its previous status.

For the last decade, the Liberal government has spoken about reconciliation, yet reconciliation without accountability remains a broken promise. This new office of the modern treaty commissioner would tell us nothing that the Office of the Auditor General and many indigenous leaders across the country have not already told us: that the government continues to fail and that outcomes for indigenous people continue to be poor. The proposal of a new office of the treaty commissioner is presented as progress by the government but would not address the root cause of the problem. It would only go to further creating bureaucracy and bloating a government that continues to fail indigenous peoples.

For the past decade, we have heard repeatedly from the Auditor General and indigenous peoples about where the government is failing to live up to its commitments to first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples. Repeated findings by the Auditor General remain unimplemented by the government. Just this past October, the Auditor General report on programs for first nations stated that, overall, “Despite an 84% increase in the department’s spending on programs since the 2019–20 fiscal year, significant challenges remained in improving services and program outcomes for First Nations communities.” It went from $13 billion to $24 billion. Accountability for this inaction rests with the cabinet and the government and should not be delegated to another layer of bureaucracy.

I want to talk about what a modern-day treaty is. A modern-day treaty is a comprehensive land claims agreement negotiated between a first nation, Métis or Inuit group and the Crown. In this case, the Crown is the federal government and, in some cases, provincial governments. Modern treaties are aimed at resolving long-standing disputes related to land ownership, resource rights and governance in a defined territory. Therefore, modern-day treaties can include land and resource provisions, financial compensation, and/or governance and decision-making authority. Once they are implemented, modern-day treaties are enforceable under federal law, and modern-day treaties can replace or clarify indigenous rights under historic treaties.

A self-government treaty is an agreement that recognizes and establishes an indigenous government. These agreements grant indigenous groups the authority to make laws in specific areas, including education, health care, culture and local services. The aim is to give more authority and administrative powers to indigenous peoples. These self-government treaties may be part of a modern-day treaty, or they may stand alone. I want to be clear that Conservatives support modern-day treaties. In fact, Conservatives were responsible for negotiating a number of modern-day treaties when we were in government. However, Conservatives do not support the assumption that increasing the size of bureaucracy and spending can compensate for the failures of the Liberal government.

Under former prime minister Stephen Harper, the previous Conservative government signed five modern-day treaties in six years. That is a good record the government should take some lessons from. The five modern-day treaties include the Tłı̨chǫ Land Claims and Self-Government Agreement, which happened in 2006; the Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement, in 2009; the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement, in 2009; the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation Governance Agreement, in 2013; and the Déline Final Self-Government Agreement, in 2015. In over a decade in power, despite all the rhetoric, the Liberal government has not negotiated a single modern-day treaty.

The previous prime minister began his tenure by stating that there was no relationship more important to him and to Canada than the ones with first nations, Métis and Inuit people, and yet the former prime minister's rhetoric and the actions of his government did not live up to that promise. Across the country, basic services and community safety in indigenous communities remain far below our national standards. Indigenous police continue to be underfunded. Housing conditions remain unacceptable. Enoch Cree Nation, a relatively well-off first nation right next to a major metropolitan area, cannot even get funding for sewage from the federal government.

We also know there is no lack of documented evidence and reports of where the government has failed. The Auditor General has documented those failures repeatedly and outlined specific ways to address them, yet the government has not acted on them.

I would ask the House if the creation of a new modern-day treaty commissioner would require the government to actually act on the obligations it makes to indigenous communities, as my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley asked. There is nothing in the bill that would require that. If the government is not implementing the recommendations of the Auditor General, what would be any different with a new treaty commissioner?

The October 2025 Auditor General report states:

During our 2021 audit, on November 1, 2020, 60 long-term drinking water advisories were in effect in First Nations communities, despite federal commitments to eliminate them by that year. As of April 1, 2025, there were 35 such advisories.

Nine of these advisories had been in effect “for a decade or longer.”

...we found that the department took initial actions to address several of our recommendations on access to primary health care services by completing studies and assessments, but did not follow through on those steps to improve services.

...some Indigenous Services Canada programs to support First Nations communities do not have clearly defined service levels. For instance, the department has defined service levels for First Nations communities with only 1 province for evacuations during emergencies, and it has not defined service levels for comparable access to health care.

Creating a new bureaucracy in the form of a commissioner would not build any more houses. It would not hire any more indigenous police officers, and it would not ensure clean drinking water. Reconciliation needs to be measured by results, and ministers and their departments should be focused on meeting their existing obligations under treaties and under our Constitution, rather than shirking off those responsibilities to a new office that would table reports that would go on to be further ignored by the government.

One area of particular concern for me, and I have raised this in the House before, is the government's failure to adequately fund services for at-risk first nations children. Jordan's principle is intended to fund services for these children. It exists to ensure that no child is caught in delays, conflict or jurisdictional confusion, and it is rooted in a principle that we can all agree on: that care for children, not jurisdictional squabbles, should come first.

I want to read part of a letter I received from Nicole Callihoo. She is the education director of Paul First Nation in my riding. Here are some excerpts from the letter: “We are writing today with a heavy heart and a deep sense of urgency. Despite submitting full Jordan’s Principle applications and following every step as required, our school has not received the funding necessary to continue services for our students. We are now in the fourth month of the school year, and these delays contradict both the spirit and the purpose of Jordan’s Principle.

“In the true way of our ancestors, we did not wait for approvals before taking care of our children. We honoured their needs and began services immediately so they would not experience further hardship or delay. These supports have brought powerful changes. Students who were once quiet and unsure have begun to speak. Those who carried worry and heaviness have started to open their hearts. They look forward to their sessions. Families have shared that they notice new calmness, confidence, and connection in their children. These are not small steps—they are the beginnings of healing.

“However, because the funding [from the government] remains outstanding, we now face the painful reality of stopping these services. Ending supports after children have finally begun to trust and feel safe goes against our cultural teachings and against everything Jordan’s Principle stands for. Interrupting care will undo progress, break relationships, and cause harm that could have been prevented. This type of disruption echoes the very history that Jordan’s Principle was created to stop.”

I wanted to share that story because it is an example of how the government is already failing to stand up for first nations communities in my riding. Vulnerable indigenous children, whom the courts decided the federal government would have a responsibility to support, have had their funding from the government cut when they go to school off-reserve. I can tell the House that in communities like mine and communities across the country where there is not a comprehensive K-to-12 education system on-reserve, indigenous students have to go off-reserve to go to high school or junior high. When they do that, when children suffer from impediments like those, Jordan's principle should be there to provide funding for them. The government cut that funding, and it has been devastating for those families.

We do not need a commissioner to tell us the government is failing. We are here talking about it in the House right now. We need action to support those families that are being hurt by the government's cuts related to Jordan's principle. We need real action to support all of those first nations that are facing boil water advisories and facing a government that has been continually breaking its word with first nations. That is why we are going to stand up here and represent them and fight for them.

[Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba, Liberal, Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's remarks. All he did was praise the accomplishments of his former government, the government of Mr. Harper, whom we can name here and whom he mentioned in passing.

I did not hear him offer any solutions. All he said was that this bill would create bureaucracy, that it would create many issues. I would like to know what solutions he proposes so that first nations can have a concrete tool for implementing their declaration while limiting the creation of new administrative structures.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, we talked about these solutions in the last election campaign. We wanted to give more powers to first nations to take control over their resource development and allow them to collect the revenues needed so that they could build up their own nations. They could build up local services. That is not to say we want the government to take a step back. The government could lean in, together with those increased resources for those first nations so they could be empowered to support their citizens.

Enoch Cree Nation in my community is a great success story, with the River Cree Resort and Casino. It has had oil and gas development and agricultural development. When first nations are empowered to develop their own resources, we see prosperity created on first nations, and we need government to lean into that as well.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is quite right when he says that the government often fails first nations.

I represent the Mohawk community of Kanesatake in the House. I know that there have been problems with water pollution caused by criminal groups, among others. I have been hounding the government about this for years, but I cannot even get a call back. The government has shown real indifference to this issue.

My colleague thinks that the government lacks leadership when it comes to treaty implementation. Still, does he not think that having a commissioner who could serve as a sort of liaison with first nations communities would be a better way to keep a closer eye on the government, particularly a government that does so little? Would it not ultimately be an accountability tool that would allow us parliamentarians, as well as first nations themselves, to keep an eye on the government?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am familiar with the first nation community in the member's riding. My ancestors came to this country with the Mohawk peoples in 1783, fleeing the United States at the time. It is absolutely unacceptable that first nations continue to face these challenges in a country as wealthy as Canada. What we are seeing with issues like talking about creating a new commissioner is a government that is talking about window dressing, when what we really need to be talking about are tangible investments to make life better for indigenous peoples in this country. It is performative, and what we really need is accountability.

That is why I am very proud, as a member of Parliament who represents communities in the Treaty No. 6 area, to stand up in the House and fight for them and hold the government accountable, to ensure it takes action to live up to its promises.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon South, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Parkland for mentioning Jordan's principle. Half of our school divisions in the province of Saskatchewan are well behind in funding from the federal government, and that has caused a lot of stress around the board tables. In fact, many school divisions have actually had to make cuts in educational assistants because they had planned ahead of time and then all of a sudden the cheque from the federal government did not come to give the support.

I just want to thank the member for bringing up Jordan's principle and ask for his thoughts on the school divisions' issues with the federal government.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is a huge issue in my riding, in my hon. colleague's riding and in ridings across the country, where school divisions, which are primarily provincially funded, have been receiving support from the federal government following the court decision on Jordan's principle. That court decision stated that for at-risk indigenous youth, the federal government would be there to provide support for educational assistants and additional supports to help many of these children, who are struggling with very unique challenges, to get ahead and up to the same level.

The government members have decided to withhold funding from groups like the Parkland School Division, resulting in layoffs of over 100 educational assistants in our area. That is hurting not only indigenous children but all the children in the school district, and the federal government is squarely to blame.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to address Bill C-10 and a fundamental issue in our nation's history: the relationship between the Crown and indigenous peoples, which must be grounded in honour, trust and, most importantly, the fulfilment of promises.

This relationship demands more than words. It demands action, yet for too long under this government, we have witnessed a pattern of rhetoric outpacing results. Over the last decade, for the Canadian federal government, reconciliation has become more of a slogan than a measurable reality. Under Bill C-10, we find another example of this trend.

Bill C-10, the commissioner for modern treaty implementation act, purports to establish a new agent of Parliament to monitor, review and audit how federal departments implement modern treaties with indigenous nations. The commissioner would conduct performance audits, assess compliance with treaty obligations objectives and the honour of the Crown itself, and report the findings to Parliament after sharing drafts with relevant departments and treaty partners.

On paper this sounds reasonable. However, far more important, in practice, it likely amounts to a multi-million dollar distraction that simply duplicates existing oversight mechanisms, lacks any real enforcement power and diverts precious resources from where they are truly needed: direct implementation, infrastructure, housing, clean water and economic opportunity for indigenous people.

Let us be frank about what modern treaties represent. These are comprehensive, hard-won agreements, often comprehensive land claim settlements, often including self-government provisions, that resolve long-standing disputes over land, resources, governance and rights. They establish enforceable federal law and empower indigenous nations to exercise authorities in areas like education, health, culture and local services. They are meant to foster true partnership, self-determination and prosperity, moving indigenous communities beyond the paternalism of the Indian Act.

Conservatives have a proud record of advancing these agreements. Under former prime minister Stephen Harper, we successfully negotiated and signed five modern treaties in just six years: the Tłı̨chǫ land claims and self-government agreement, which was finalized in 2005 and 2006; the Maa-nulth First Nations final agreement in 2009; the Tsawwassen First Nation final agreement in 2009; the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation governance agreement in 2013; and the Délı̨nę final self-government agreement in 2015. These were not symbolic gestures. They delivered land, resources, financial settlements and governance powers that have enabled economic growth and community-led decision-making. In stark contrast, the Liberal government, now approaching 11 years in power, has signed exactly zero new modern treaties.

Seventy negotiations languish today in limbo, as they have for years. Basic commitments, such as ending long-term boil water advisories, which were, by the way, promised to be completely resolved by 2021, remain unfulfilled in dozens of communities, to the detriment of these communities. Housing shortages persist. Policing is under-resourced in many areas, and climate vulnerabilities hit indigenous nations hardest. As for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, many still gather dust.

The Auditor General, a commissioner who already has powers to document all of these issues, has extensively documented these failures, repeatedly, over the last 11 years. There have been more than 20 reports that have highlighted chronic issues: inconsistent departmental interpretations of treaty terms; delayed or incomplete fiscal transfers; fragmented responsibilities across Indigenous Services Canada, Crown-Indigenous Relations, Justice Canada and the Treasury Board; and most damningly, a complete absence of consequences when obligations are ignored.

Key audits include the 2013 comprehensive review of modern treaty implementation, the 2016 report on the Labrador-Inuit claims agreement and follow-ups in subsequent years showing little meaningful progress on any issue by the Liberal government. Even as recently as 2005, the Auditor General's follow-up on first nations' programs underscored ongoing implementation gaps and unsatisfactory actions on prior recommendations, yet the government responds not with decisive leadership but with more bureaucracy, as we find in the bill before us.

In this bill, we find another commissioner, another office, another $10.6 million over four years with ongoing annual millions of funding that could instead be used to fund homes, water systems or job-creating projects. The commissioner in this bill would review, monitor, assess, evaluate and report, but those are words that the Auditor General's mandate already has.

Unlike the Auditor General, this new role offers no binding recommendations, no penalties for non-compliance and no ability to compel departmental action. Reports under the bill would filter through the minister before Parliament sees them, how convenient, risking dilution or delay. Parliament itself has no power to initiate audits under this new recommendation. This is not robust accountability. It is simply performative oversight designed to deflect criticism from the federal Liberal government's lack of action.

Indigenous leaders and treaty partners deserve better than more endless reports. They deserve results. The Supreme Court's 2024 Restoule decision on the Robinson treaties reminds us what happens when the Crown fails its duties for generations: breaches of trust, prolonged litigation and eroded confidence. We cannot afford to repeat that cycle with modern treaties.

True reconciliation requires executive responsibility, not administrative expansion. Departments must prioritize treaty fulfilment in budgets and operations. Ministers must face consequences for lapses through performance evaluations, public scrutiny or even personnel changes when the failures are systemic. Indigenous governments should have direct funded channels to flag issues and demand response without bureaucratic intermediaries, as is outlined in this bill.

There are many other ways that the government could do better on all of these fronts. For example, it could enforce existing obligations directly by tying ministerial and deputy ministerial performance reviews explicitly to treaty compliance metrics, ensuring personal accountability for delays or breaches. The government could strengthen the Auditor General's monetary capacity by allocating dedicated and highly structured resources within the OAG for specialized recurring modern treaty audits with faster follow-up mechanisms and mandatory parliamentary briefings. It could impose strict response timelines that would mandate that departments must provide detailed action plans and progress updates within 90 days of any Auditor General finding or treaty partner complaint.

The government could accelerate stalled negotiations by setting clear timelines and processes for concluding the 70 ongoing talks, redirecting funds from redundant offices to bolster negotiation teams and support direct implementation. It could redirect the proposed costs associated with this bill towards achieving tangible priorities, including housing construction, clean water infrastructure, policing enhancements and economic development in treaty territories. The government could better empower indigenous-led oversight mechanisms by supporting direct oversight protocols that allow modern treaty partners to trigger departmental reviews and enforce transparency with new federal layers. It could advance economic reconciliation by fast-tracking resource partnerships, revenue sharing and development projects under existing treaties to generate jobs, self-sufficiency and community wealth.

The government could consolidate duplicative entities, instead of creating more of them, by merging or eliminating overlapping post-2015 offices into a single streamlined accountability framework with real, actual enforcement authority. It could enhance dispute resolution tools to better ensure expedited access to mediation, arbitration or tribunals in treaty disputes, reducing costly court battles. The government could shift to outcome-based metrics by replacing vague reporting with clear, public key performance indicators, such as homes completed, water advisories lifted and governance powers exercised. These are all things that would demonstrate visible progress as opposed to another bureaucracy.

Reconciliation is not measured by the number of offices in Ottawa or the volumes of reports produced. It should be measured by safe homes built, clean water flowing, strong policing in communities, thriving economies and the full honouring of nation-to-nation promises. Conservatives stand firmly for indigenous economic empowerment and accountability that delivers results, not more red tape.

We will not support Bill C-10 in its current form because it distracts from leadership failures and perpetuates delay. Let us instead demand action, enforce what already exists, hold people accountable and deliver for indigenous persons, who have waited long enough.

[William Stevenson, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, as a member of INAN, the indigenous and northern affairs committee, I welcome a lot of the member's suggestions because the criticism we get from the government is that we do not have suggestions. The member has touched upon a lot of the issues, specifically one that has hit my riding.

Does the member think they could work with what they have available now, or does the process need to change? In my riding, the Exshaw School was going to have to close because it was reliant on the neighbouring Stoney nation, which had all its kids there, and the government was not paying for the school. The school was about to close until the eleventh hour.

Does the member think it is just that the Liberals do not get things done, or do they need to change the process entirely?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague would know from hearing testimony from indigenous persons at his committee that the reality is that when there are critical issues on the ground or ongoing generational issues, what often happens is that they get raised and then they go into this black box ether of multidepartmental malaise and event horizon that results in nothing. It results in more reports and more obfuscation, and that is not how we are going to achieve reconciliation in Canada.

Again, I tried to put forward concrete recommendations for the government to move away from more bureaucracy, more paternalism and more complaints, ending up in an endless morass of bureaucracy, and toward real key performance indicator-based outcomes that we can measure, like more schools built and boil water advisories lifted. This is where we need to go, and it is very disappointing to see yet another bureaucracy put in place as opposed to talking about actual outcomes.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Calgary Nose Hill for sharing her perspective with us, although it is not one that I share. The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C‑10. We think it is a good idea to have a commissioner.

However, if the bill is passed and a commissioner is appointed, I am concerned about the appointment process. Earlier, I gave the example of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is also appointed for seven years, who is independent of Parliament, and whose appointment—which is supposed to be a consensus decision—is becoming politicized. We know that the Minister of Finance has done everything possible to undermine his credibility and that the Liberals may be in the process of choosing the new Parliamentary Budget Officer without consulting the other parties. I wonder what my colleague thinks about commissioners being appointed by the Governor in Council, which basically means by the Prime Minister.

Does my colleague not think that, if the bill is passed, we should perhaps try out a new method and have an appointment process that directly involves Parliament?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I also have concerns about the politicization of the Parliamentary Budget Officer appointment. I think Parliament should have more influence and oversight in that appointment process. However, at the same time, the member also gave the exact argument for why colleagues in this place should not be supporting this bill. A better option to have more oversight would be to have fenced, allocated resources within the existing scope of the Auditor General's office, because it has teeth behind its processes.

I believe, if Bill C-10 passes, indigenous persons are going to experience more delays, more obfuscations and more politicization, as opposed to achieving actual results. We should be talking about lifted boil water advisories, economic opportunities and resource partnership development. That is where we need to be driving, and that is what we should be talking about here.

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

Madam Speaker, it is very good this morning to hear the comments from the members opposite and their new-found respect for treaties and also for reconciliation.

I am just wondering how the member opposite would reconcile that with the comments from her leader that the federal government should override indigenous rights in order to get pipelines built, regardless of the objection of those rights holders.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, first of all, the Leader of the Opposition sat in a government that successfully negotiated and finalized six modern-day treaties. My colleague opposite sits in a government that has negotiated zero treaties over 11 years. The proof is in the pudding.

Second of all, the Prime Minister, the leader of the member's party, has claimed that he wants to build pipelines, yet he cannot point to a shovel in the ground. I think what is going to happen is that the Liberals' voter coalition is rapidly going to fall apart because they do not have the chops to do exactly what my colleague opposite said, which is advance resource development processes while—

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

We are out of time and need to resume debate.

The hon. member for Haldimand—Norfolk.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-10, an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation.

At its core, the bill responds to long-standing concerns raised by indigenous communities about the need for greater federal accountability in implementing modern treaties and agreements. These treaties are essentially comprehensive land claims agreements that are negotiated between first nations, Inuit and Métis groups and the Crown to resolve long-standing disputes in defined territories.

I want to recognize that indigenous communities have long asked for a mechanism to ensure that Canada fulfills its promises under these treaties. However, the way the bill seeks to achieve that goal raises important concerns about accountability, clarity and the impact on existing property rights.

First, many of the functions the commissioner would perform are already done within the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations. By codifying them in law and creating a new office, we risk duplicating roles, blurring the lines of authority and diffusing ministerial responsibility.

Despite appearances, the commissioner for modern treaties implementation would not be an officer of Parliament like the Auditor General or the Ethics Commissioner, who are appointed by and report directly to Parliament itself. They are independent of government and do not exist to hold the executive, the Prime Minister and the cabinet to account.

However, under Bill C-10, the commissioner would be appointed by cabinet, via the Governor in Council, on the advice of the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations. This means the commissioner would sit within the executive branch, the Prime Minister's cabinet, and not the legislative branch. While the commissioner would table reports in Parliament, they would answer to the very government they are meant to monitor. Parliament could not direct them, remove them or review their work in any substantive way. This is a very serious oversight gap.

We have seen this problem before. The Canada Infrastructure Bank was designed with similar intentions: to be at arm's length, efficient and transparent. Instead, it became a costly entity with limited parliamentary scrutiny, spending billions while accountability remained murky. This new proposed office, with $10.6 million over four years, risks following the same path.

I also note that no external oversight mechanisms are built into Bill C-10, which is a very big omission. There would be no independent review body overseeing the commissioner. There would be no performance audit or sunset clause. There would be no clear consequences for failing to act on findings. There would be no mandatory parliamentary committee review at fixed intervals.

These omissions of accountability are not abstract. They would have real-world consequences, particularly when it comes to land and resource rights. In provinces such as Alberta and British Colombia, people are, right now, experiencing the practical impacts of uncertainty due to overlapping land rights. Landowners with fee simple title, which is the form of title most Canadians own their home under, are worried. These landowners believed their property rights were secure, but they are discovering that they may need to consult indigenous groups before doing things like building a dock, harvesting timber or even walking through nearby forested areas.

The Cowichan Tribes v. Canada decision has shown that even the long-held title ownership Canadians have in their homes and lands does not always confer absolute control. This has created a great deal of uncertainty for landowners, lenders and the real estate market. As treaty rights continue to expand across the country, this decision would continue to touch more communities, municipalities and resource-rich regions across Canada.

As these modern treaties are implemented, we must also prepare Canadians for the changes that will follow. This is why the roles, powers and accountability mechanisms of the commissioner must be clearly defined, which is something that is not present in the bill and that the bill fails to do. We do not need a new layer of bureaucracy with undefined reach into matters that affect both indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians. It is crucial that the government communicate all policies and legal shifts openly and honestly with Canadians. Canadians deserve to understand not only the rights being affirmed for indigenous communities but also their own rights. Canadians also need to understand how their rights, including property rights and resource rights, may be affected.

This is about transparency and fairness. People cannot respect or adapt to what has been hidden from them. If we fail to prepare the public and if these developments arise suddenly or unevenly, we risk confusion, frustration and unnecessary division. For years, the government has talked about reconciliation, but without accountability and without clarity, reconciliation will never be achieved. The path ahead must therefore include national education that explains how treaty rights and private ownership rights coexist under Canadian law and how governments intend to manage those intersectionalities.

Canadians must not be left to learn through conflict or court cases. They must be included through dialogue, communication and truth. The relationship between Canada and indigenous peoples must be built on trust, integrity and transparency. Trust is not created by removing ministerial responsibility or by insulating bureaucracies from scrutiny. We cannot allow the new commissioner to become a parallel system of governance funded by taxpayers, shielded from oversight and empowered to make decisions that could change the relationship with Canada's indigenous peoples, property rights in Canada and the economic stability of the country without direct accountability.

There is a basic irony here in the government creating a treaty commissioner who could not be overlooked. At its core, the implementation of treaties is the responsibility of cabinet ministers. These are elected officials who are accountable to Parliament and to Canadians, and whose role is to ensure that government programs and policies uphold the law and meet Canada's obligations. Bill C-10 would create a new, cabinet-appointed office to audit and monitor federal departments, effectively outsourcing a core ministerial responsibility.

I am not kidding. The government is creating an office to monitor whether it does the very job taxpayers elected it to do. Taxpayers pay ministers close to $350,000 every year, yet the ministers have the audacity to outsource their responsibility to commissioners they appoint. The Liberal government is taking outsourcing, obviously, to another level. This is simply circular accountability, where ministers evade ownership of the consequences of their decisions. This so-called independent commissioner would likely become a shield for government, allowing ministers to deflect responsibility and accountability from treaty implementation and land rights. The proposed arrangement raises some fundamental questions. If a minister's duty is to ensure compliance, why is an independent office needed to check that they are doing their job?

In short, and in closing, while the spirit of the bill aims to improve accountability and transparency, it actually risks the opposite by allowing ministers to abdicate their duty to Parliament and hide behind the commissioners. This is why any discussion of oversight must focus on holding ministers directly accountable. We must ensure the commissioner's work supports, rather than substitutes, democracy and responsibility.

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

Madam Speaker, there were a lot of interesting points made by the member opposite. In particular, I take her point about property rights and economic stability.

She noted, at the beginning of her comments, that the bill on the commissioner for modern treaties was built and developed with the support of, and in consultation with, indigenous rights holders and indigenous communities across Canada.

I wonder how she would respond to them, in that the bill would implement specifically what they have been asking for.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, the important issue is one of reconciliation. If we implement a system that blocks accountability and allows the ministers to deflect responsibility, it would not lead to reconciliation.

It is very important that, with Bill C-10, people recognize that this system would ensure that the minister would appoint a commissioner, and that the commissioner would then be accountable to the same minister who appointed them. This would deflect the responsibility of the cabinet, which is supposed to be accountable for reconciliation in this country.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are talking about creating this position through Bill C-10, which we are debating today. We can only commend the creation of this position as an important step.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. For genuine reconciliation with indigenous peoples to occur, we must ensure that action is taken for indigenous women and girls. How many reports show that they are disproportionately affected by problems of all kinds? What does my colleague think about that?

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, there are a number of recommendations in the report that deal with the status of indigenous women. What is important for reconciliation, and for indigenous women to feel empowered, is making sure that whatever system is in place is not filled with bureaucracy but rather responds to their needs and does not deflect responsibility away from ministers.

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

Madam Speaker, in Canada, we already have one of the most senior and most powerful institutions. The Auditor General is already saying that Canada is failing at its treaty obligations. There are half a dozen oversight committees. There are aboriginal groups advocating for government to live up to its commitments under treaties. There are also the treaty provisions themselves that speak to accountability.

Would the creation of a new commissioner compel the ministers and the government to live up to treaty obligations?