Madam Speaker, let us suppose that what my colleague is saying is true, that the government lacks leadership, that it has not implemented or signed enough treaties and that it has not made enough progress. That may be true.
That said, I am having a hard time following the logic of the member's argument because the government is saying that it wants to have oversight. It wants to have a commissioner with clear standards. It wants to implement the United Nations declaration, to have road maps and to improve relationships.
How is it a bad thing to have a commissioner who will accomplish those tasks? Incidentally, it is somewhat distasteful to compare a commissioner to ArriveCan. That is going a bit far. I get the impression that all passing the bill will do is ensure constant government oversight.
I do not understand how the government is failing to show leadership by having a commissioner with a clearly defined role and mandate. I would like someone to explain that to me.