Debates of April 21st, 2026

Committees of the House

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the motion defeated.

[Eleanor Olszewski, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my telephone app did not work. I voted nay.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The member is asking for unanimous consent to consider her vote.

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Admissibility of Committee Amendments to Bill C-11—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on April 17, 2026, by the deputy House leader of the government in the House of Commons regarding the admissibility of amendments adopted by the Standing Committee on National Defence to Bill C-11, an act to amend the National Defence Act and other acts.

The member contended that during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, six amendments, CPC-1, CPC-10, BQ-2, CPC-16, NDP-4 and BQ-3, were adopted by the committee after having been ruled inadmissible by the chair. The member requested that the Speaker review the content of the bill as amended and determine whether the six amendments in question would exceed the scope and principle of the bill as determined by the House at second reading.

The member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman argued that the six amendments in question are consistent with the principle and scope of the bill. He claimed that CPC-1 would fix an unintended omission from the bill and that the mention of the judge advocate general in the bill's summary demonstrates the importance of the position. With respect to CPC-16, BQ-2 and NDP-4, he argued that these amendments had the support of all committee members.

The member contended that BQ-3 would both increase the pool of potential military judges, something already contemplated in the bill, and result in judges' release from the forces, which he argued is consistent with the principle of enhancing the independence of the military justice system. Finally, he argued that CPC-10, by providing for the appointment of a liaison officer for the accused, would make a change consistent with the bill's proposal concerning a victim's liaison officer.

The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton also intervened on the matter. He argued that amendments BQ‑2 and BQ‑3 should not have been ruled inadmissible by the chair. Regarding BQ‑2, the member maintained that it merely requires the government to table a plan to study the creation of an inspector general on sexual misconduct, without creating a position or requiring new spending, and was supported by expert testimony and unanimously adopted in committee. As for BQ‑3, the member argued that it was meant to correct an omission from the bill as introduced by the government, namely to strengthen the independence of military judges by ensuring they cease to be members of the Canadian Armed Forces upon appointment.

In light of the arguments made, the Chair has carefully reviewed Bill C‑11 as adopted by the House at second reading and the amendments in question.

The principles or main legislative objectives of the bill appear to be to reform the military justice system with a particular view to enhancing the independence of authorities in the system and removing the military justice system's jurisdiction over crimes of a sexual nature. The amendments in question propose changes to the National Defence Act.

Two of the amendments, CPC‑1 and CPC‑16, were ruled inadmissible by the chair of the committee since they seek to amend a section of the act that is not amended by Bill C‑11. Four further amendments, BQ‑2, NDP‑4, CPC‑10 and BQ‑3, were ruled inadmissible by the chair of the committee on the grounds that they exceed the scope of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading.

The Chair will first address the amendments that were ruled inadmissible due to a violation of the parent act principle. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, explains this principle in section 16.75 as follows:

In the case of a bill referred to a committee after second reading, an amendment is generally inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill. In certain cases, such amendments can, however, be admissible if they are shown to be directly relevant to the subject matter of the bill being considered, while meeting the criteria of principle and scope.

CPC-1 creates a new time limit during which an officer may act on behalf of the judge advocate general with the possibility of extension by approval of the Governor in Council. Similarly, CPC-16 creates a new clause to amend the appointment process for the chief military judge to ensure the position cannot be vacant for more than 120 days. Both amendments seek to amend sections of the act that the bill does not address. While the bill does mention both positions, the version adopted at second reading did not amend the appointment process for the judge advocate general, the process through which others can act on behalf of the judge advocate general, or the appointment process for the chief military judge. In the case of CPC-1 and CPC-16, the Chair agrees that the amendments were inadmissible as they are inconsistent with the parent act principle.

The Chair will now consider the remaining amendments, which were ruled to be inadmissible for exceeding the scope of the bill. As Speaker Milliken noted in a ruling on January 29, 2008, at pages 2312‑2313 of the Debates: The principle refers to the purpose or objective of a bill, while the scope refers to its legislative scheme or the mechanisms that will give effect to the principle, purpose or objective of a bill.

BQ‑2 seeks, in clause 8 of the bill, to add new section 70.4 in the act, which would require the preparation of a plan to create an office of the inspector general for sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. The deputy government House leader had also suggested in her intervention that this amendment could infringe upon the financial prerogative of the Crown. While the Chair does not find that the preparation of the plan would impose a charge on the public treasury, an office of an inspector general for sexual misconduct does appear to be a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading.

NDP-4 amends clause 9 of the bill by adding new subsections 71.16(4) and 71.16(5) to the act to ensure, to the extent possible, that every person involved in the investigation or prosecution has training or experience in trauma-informed approaches. Bill C-11 amends section 71.16 of the act, but in a very limited matter, only to provide that an individual acting on a person's behalf can request that a victim's liaison officer be appointed. To add a requirement for every person involved in an investigation and prosecution to have this sort of training appears to the Chair to go beyond the scope of the changes proposed in the bill. Furthermore, the bill is silent on training related to trauma-informed approaches, which also appears to the Chair to be a new concept beyond the scope of the bill.

CPC-10 adds a new clause to the bill that adds a new section in the act, which would create a new mechanism for the appointment of a liaison officer to assist the accused. The act already provides for a liaison officer for the victim, but not for the accused. The bill, therefore, is not introducing this concept, but, rather, is simply modifying a matter related to the appointment of a victim's liaison officer. The concept of a liaison officer for the accused appears to be an entirely new concept that was not already contemplated by the bill as adopted at second reading and appears to the Chair to exceed its scope.

Finally, BQ-3 amends clause 18 of the bill by further expanding the class of persons who are eligible to be appointed as a military judge and providing that any officers or non-commissioned members appointed to be military judges are to be released from the Canadian Forces. As stated in paragraph (e) of its summary, the bill already expands the class of persons who are eligible to be appointed as military judges. To amend these provisions to further expand that class of persons appears to the Chair to be consistent with the legislative scheme of the bill; however, the amendment also introduces the new concept of the release from the Canadian Forces of anyone appointed as military judges, and this appears to be beyond the scope of the specific change the bill proposed to make to the act.

In the Chair's view, while these amendments may to varying degrees relate to the principles of Bill C‑11, they nevertheless go beyond the legislative scheme and concepts provided for in the bill and were correctly ruled inadmissible by the Chair of the committee as being outside its scope.

Consequently, I order the aforementioned amendments adding new clauses 2.1, 9.1, and 19.1, as well as those amending clauses 8, 9 and 18 be declared null and void and no longer form part of the bill as reported to the House. In addition, I am ordering a reprint of Bill C-11 with the removal of the inadmissible amendments. This reprinted version will stand as the official version of the bill for consideration at report stage.

I thank members for their attention.

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, the time provided for Government Orders will be extended by 13 minutes.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-10, An Act respecting the Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

There is one motion in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-10.

Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.

Motions in Amendment

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

moved:

That Bill C-10 be amended by deleting the short title.

Mr. Speaker, before I get to my comments, I would like to draw members' attention to Cancer Awareness Month in honour of my younger sister, my mother and all those fighting this horrible disease; and the support teams who help out those who are trying to fight cancer.

We are talking today about the government trying to create a new position of treaty commissioner. The rationale is that somehow this would give accountability to the government's implementing and honouring the modern-day treaties that have been signed, mainly in B.C. They were negotiated in B.C. for the last 30 or 40 years. I have the honour of having one treaty in my riding, the Nisg̱a'a Treaty. The treaty is 20 years old and yet the people still cannot get the federal government to co-operate as a treaty partner as outlined in the treaty itself.

I also have in my riding two first nations that are up for ratification, the Kitselas First Nation and Kitsumkalum. They are going through the ratification stage right now in B.C. However, they are going to face the same problems that Nisg̱a'a, Tsawwassen, Maa-nulth and other first nations are experiencing right now with modern-day treaties, in that they cannot get Canada to participate in a modern-day treaty in partnership with Canada.

The current Liberal government wants the world to think that if it creates a treaty commissioner there will be accountability and Canada would then get to the table and co-operate with these first nations that have signed modern-day treaties. However, what government members will forget to tell them is that this issue is 20 years old. It comes back annually. There have been endless reports, even to the point where the Government of Canada created a document called the “Cabinet Directive on the Federal Approach to Modern Treaty Implementation”. It has headings: “Roles and Responsibilities...Deputy Ministers' Oversight Committee...Modern Treaty Implementation Office [and] Evaluation of the Directive”.

On top of that is the expected rhetoric that the government will “ensure that they are aware of, understand, and fulfill their departments' obligations pursuant to all modern treaties in effect.” It sounds good, except it does not do it. The treaty itself is supposed to be a document that says Canada, B.C. and a first nation shall work together in key areas. A first nation gives up its asserted rights and title and comes into a constitutionally protected document agreement in good faith, in the spirit that the first nation that signs the treaty will walk beside Canada and B.C. and help build Canada together.

The first nations are there. They want to implement and they want to build, not just for their own first nation but for Canada overall, but Canada is missing. In fact, the document, “Cabinet Directive on the Federal Approach to Modern Treaty Implementation”, came from another document, “Canada's Collaborative Modern Treaty Implementation Policy”. This has more headings than the first document I named. It goes on at length ad nauseam in terms of how Canada this year will commit to implementing the treaties that it signed with first nations. It has the regular rhetoric: “Message from the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations...Purpose...Context...Interpretation and application of this policy...Principles guiding the timely, effective and full implementation of modern treaties...Advancing objectives of modern treaties...[and] Direction to public servants”.

That means that every single ministry under the federal government that is tasked with working with its counterparts in treaty first nations has been directed to do a job.

There are headings on legislative, policy and program design considerations; monitoring, evaluation and review; and commitments to further work on essential components of the policy. Then there are the annexes. One is intergovernmental relationships, with the intergovernmental leaders' forum and the intergovernmental policy circle. The next is accountability and oversight.

All these documents and all these announcements that have come up year after year over the past 30 years are simply to state one thing: Canada is not living up to the obligations that it signed on to with the modern day treaties. Is it any wonder that the first nations will take anything that shows accountability to the first nations that have already signed them?

There are already mechanisms in the House that speak to the accountability. There are already entities outside the House that speak to the accountability that should be there but is not. There is the Auditor General's report on whether or not the government is living up to its commitments and obligations under the treaty. In B.C., we have the BC Treaty Commission, “the keeper of the process”, as it is referred to.

There is also every single department under the federal government that is supposed to be held accountable and should be sending reports to the government and to cabinet on why they are or are not living up to these commitments. We have logged, cut down, a massive amount of forest to produce all the paperwork simply to say we want to work with first nations that have signed a treaty, that have given up their aboriginal rights and title.

The biggest example that comes to mind is the Nisg̱a'a, in my territory. They wanted to be respected as a treaty partner. They take pride in their treaty. Not only is it a form of independence they are still working on, but they also thought they would be walking side by side with the federal and provincial governments. That is not so, according to the Nisg̱a'a.

On Bill C-48, the tanker ban, the Nisg̱a'a urged the government that the moratorium, the tanker ban, must not be introduced before the implications for their nation and their treaty were well understood. More important, they said that the moratorium should not cover Nisg̱a'a treaty territory. The Nisg̱a'a, to be clear, were not supporting a tanker ban. They were not for it. They were not against it. They just felt that they were owed the duty of a higher level of consultation when Canada was proposing it. They did not get it.

This brings me back to the days of the B.C. legislature. I warned the B.C. legislature not to play games with aboriginal issues, whether we were talking about case law or UNDRIP, and now B.C. is chaos. I give the same warning to the House. We should not play games with aboriginal issues, or else the chaos and the confusion are going to get built on, in terms of what we are seeing in B.C. right now.

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

Mr. Speaker, just to respond quickly to the member's last comments, I can assure him that whether it is the Prime Minister or members on the government benches, we will not play games with indigenous people. Indigenous people are in fact a nation we are obligated to work with.

The legislation that is being proposed, Bill C-10, to establish the commissioner for modern treaty implementation, is something that is being relatively well received. Can the member provide his thoughts on the principles of the legislation as proposed and on the general feeling of the indigenous communities he represents, and also those beyond the province of B.C.?

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

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, you are playing games with aboriginal issues. The Speaker is not, but through the Speaker to the member of the Liberal government, I say that you are playing games. You have 20 years of reports. There is Canada's collaborative modern treaty implementation policy that you have not implemented. Out of that, there is the cabinet directive on the federal approach to modern day treaty implementation that you have not implemented, so you are—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I am going to interrupt the member with a reminder to speak through the Chair and not directly to the other member he is referring to, and to find another way to word it rather than using “you”. We are always to speak through the Speaker and not directly to the member.

Questions and comments.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree completely with my colleague that we must not play games with the implementation of treaties. Canadian history demonstrates that the federal government has rarely been sensitive to national minorities, whether indigenous or from Quebec.

However, there is still a certain degree of consensus. We are prepared to move forward quickly. I would like to know what my colleague thinks needs to be changed in the bill for the Conservative Party to get behind it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that there is any amendment that could be proposed that would actually breathe life into the agreements. The announcements are all there in black and white. They are detailed right down to the last letter. Creating another position to implement what the government should have been doing right from day one would just give first nations and the Canadian public a false sense of security, even of accomplishment for that matter.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on the Wet'suwet'en issue, many Canadians were captivated by what was happening in their territory, where a pipeline was being blocked, a project was being blocked. I met Hereditary Chief Theresa Tait-Day. She came to me and said, “Bob, 80% of us in the Wet'suwet'en really support this project.” Elected chiefs and hereditary chiefs supported it, and there was a small group of hereditary chiefs who were opposed to the project. Guess which group the minister at the time from the Liberal government was sent out to negotiate with. It was only with the people who were in opposition to the project.

We talk about “in good faith”. Does the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley think the Liberals really do want to work in good faith with first nations?

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

Mr. Speaker, no, I do not think the Liberal government is sincere. Otherwise, why would we need a treaty commissioner, when it is already laid out in a number of agreements and announcements and the treaty itself says that it has to be partnering up on the clauses in each treaty? There were the games in the B.C. legislature as well. An ex-minister from the House was actually hired by the B.C. NDP to settle the pipeline blockade issue. We could not see the report, because the report was deemed an oral report, so we still do not know what the consequences of that were.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to acknowledge, with respect, that we are gathered on the ancestral lands of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. These territories are unceded and unsurrendered, and they have been places of meeting and exchange for centuries.

I recognize that Parliament itself has long been a place where relationships are negotiated, challenged and renewed. It is particularly timely to reflect on this history today, as we consider a bill that directly addresses how Canada fulfills its treaty obligations and honours its commitments to indigenous peoples.

I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-10, an act that would create a commissioner for modern treaty implementation. The path toward reconciliation has never been simple. That said, treaties, both historic and modern, have shaped and will continue to shape the relationship between the Crown and indigenous peoples, and as such are vital to reconciliation efforts. Modern treaties in particular are essential to this work. These constitutional agreements emerged in the 1970s as Canada sought to address unresolved land claims through negotiated agreements rather than prolonged litigation.

I want to acknowledge the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, who comes from the great region of the Nisg̱a'a, who were among the early signers of a modern treaty.

Many Yukon first nations were also at the forefront of the push for modern treaties. ln 1973, Elijah Smith and a delegation of Yukon chiefs went to Ottawa to meet with the Prime Minister of Canada to present the historic document “Together Today for our Children Tomorrow”. This document was among the first land claim proposals to be accepted by the Government of Canada under its new comprehensive land claims policy, and the negotiation of modern treaties in the Yukon began shortly thereafter.

These agreements aim to provide legal clarity and certainty by clearly defining rights, obligations and governance arrangements. They were designed not only to address past grievances, but also to establish sustainable frameworks for the future.

Bill C-10 is a priority for modern treaty nations across Canada. At present there are 27 self-governing nations operating under modern treaties. In the Yukon today, 11 out of 14 first nations are governed by such agreements. Taken together, these agreements cover a significant portion of Canada's land and sea mass, particularly in the north. They involve thousands of specific obligations and engage more than 30 federal departments and agencies. This scale and this complexity make effective implementation essential. They also make coordination challenging.

The Yukon stands as a strong example of what modern treaties can achieve. Yukon first nations exercise law-making authority, manage lands and resources and deliver programs and services in accordance with their agreements. At the same time, the Yukon's experience demonstrates a clear lesson. Even well-designed treaties require consistent and coordinated federal follow-through if they are able to fully achieve their intent. Implementation is not automatic. It requires sustained attention, institutional knowledge and accountability over time.

This is the context in which Bill C‑10 must be understood. This legislation is timely. It builds on previous efforts and goes further than previous proposals. It represents a concrete step forward on the path to reconciliation. Bill C‑10 was thoroughly studied by the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, of which I am a member. The committee heard testimony from 27 witnesses representing self-governing first nations from across Canada. After clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, the committee reported the bill back to the House without amendment so far.

That report was unanimous. This outcome speaks to the strength and consistency of the evidence heard at committee. Witnesses from across the country spoke clearly about the need for an independent body dedicated to modern treaty implementation. They emphasized that existing mechanisms have not been sufficient to address systemic and recurring challenges.

I found the testimony of Grand Chief Math'ieya Alatini of the Council of Yukon First Nations particularly compelling. Yukon first nations were, again, among the earliest modern treaty partners in Canada, and their experience offers important insight. The grand chief explained that although modern treaties clearly define obligations, the absence of an independent body to track progress has allowed unresolved issues to persist for long periods. Treaty nations are often required to raise the same concerns repeatedly, with limited resolution.

The grand chief emphasized that the proposed commissioner would not reopen agreements or disrupt existing processes. Rather, the office would elevate unresolved implementation issues, provide objective assessment and help restore momentum when progress has stalled.

A witness from the Naskapi Nation of Quebec stressed the importance of the evolution of modern treaties, especially given the evolution of federal government policies and the economic and social development of the communities involved. She said that although the implementation of a treaty signed in the 1970s may now be effectively completed, it is still essential to review that implementation today and to revisit the spirit of the treaty, as well as the context in which it was signed. She emphasized that a commissioner of modern treaties would have an essential role in this work to ensure that these agreements continue to address current realities while honouring the commitments and intentions on which they were based.

Opposition members have raised thoughtful questions during the committee study, including whether a new commissioner was necessary and whether the Office of the Auditor General could fulfill this role. Witnesses addressed these questions directly. They explained that while the Auditor General has strong investigatory powers, their work necessarily spans the entire federal government. Reviews of modern treaty implementation have therefore been broad and episodic.

Modern treaty implementation, by contrast, requires continuous attention, subject matter expertise and institutional memory. A dedicated commissioner would complement existing oversight bodies rather than duplicate them, by bringing continuous attention and institutional memory to this work.

In the end, the bill was referred back to the House. Witness testimony helped to allay some concerns and highlighted the need for this legislation. Modern treaty partners across Canada are calling for practical measures. They are not asking for new promises. They are calling for the faithful implementation of agreements that have already been reached.

We have listened and now we must act. This bill has been years in the making. Passing it now will ensure that arguments already made are honoured in practice and would mark another meaningful step forward on the path of reconciliation.

Meegwetch.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague and friend has been a very strong advocate with regard to the whole truth and reconciliation file, and he understands and appreciates the many different aspects in the north, especially when it comes to the future potential of the north. There is that obligation that we have as a nation.

I am wondering if he could just provide his thoughts in regard to truth and reconciliation, working toward that, how the modern treaties are a positive step forward, and how all of us benefit by having that independent advocate.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I feel so proud, as the member of Parliament for the Yukon, to be able to talk about the progress that we have seen through modern treaties. Self-governing modern treaty nations are working toward implementation. Implementation, I know, has often been frustrating, but the progress they have made as partners in everything that happens in the Yukon has been incredible to witness.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, every one of these treaties is a contract, and every one of them is a contract between a first nation or an indigenous group and the Crown. All of them have dispute resolutions. Normally, when someone is in breach of a contract, they contact the other party and tell them they are in breach of this contract. The party either says, yes they are, or no, they are not.

Why do we need a commissioner to do this job when the government should be looking at these contracts, abiding by them and fixing its behaviour if it is not?

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I do want to make a distinction between a contract and a treaty. In particular, a modern treaty is a profoundly deep agreement that is often the work of years, if not decades, of putting together the right framework that is suited to that first nation and workable within the Government of Canada. Again, there have been frustrations over the years in implementing these treaties, but on the other hand, we have seen incredible progress. I do think that, again, I am speaking on behalf of these modern treaty nations that are asking for an independent commissioner to ensure that the spirit and the commitments of modern treaties are met by Canada.

[Ginette Lavack, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Mr. Speaker, at the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, we have often heard about how important it was to include indigenous people in the drafting of this bill. Can my colleague tell us why that was so important? Can he explain how that process actually worked and explain how drafting the bill in co-operation with indigenous people made it so robust?

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises a very important point. Since the earlier version of this bill was introduced in the previous Parliament, we have worked collaboratively with first nations to draft this modern treaty implementation bill. That is a fundamental aspect of the spirit and principles of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to speak to Bill C‑10, an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation.

I want to thank all the groups that worked together to develop this bill. This includes the 130 first nations and Inuit indigenous groups who offered their collaboration and who have been calling for this bill for decades.

I also want to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, who worked together during the study of the bill to see if we could improve it. Naturally, we wanted to work diligently because the bill had already been introduced in the previous Parliament. This bill is a second attempt and it is one that everyone agrees on, so I believe that we should move forward fairly quickly.

Quite simply, indigenous organizations were calling for the creation of a commissioner position to work on the federal government's accountability, transparency and responsibility in meeting its obligations. In their view, these obligations were not being met. That is why we are studying this bill. It may come as a surprise, because the government should be responsible and transparent. It should be diligent in answering for its acts or omissions, but that is not the case. Unfortunately, to supplement the Auditor General's work, indigenous groups had to ask that a commissioner also be assigned to ensure that the government fulfills its obligations.

Bill C-10 is a step in the right direction because it is something that first nations and Inuit peoples have been calling for in terms of the signature and implementation of treaties. For decades, first nations have seen that, although the government has an obligation to implement various treaties, it is not doing so. There are delays and, after a great deal of struggle, first nations ultimately have to go to court to make their voices heard. They spend a lot of money for the court to tell the government that it has to fulfill its obligations. That is just common sense. It is a truism, but that is what the government has to do. We need a commissioner to help with that.

The Bloc Québécois unequivocally supports the self-determination of nations. It supports any quest for autonomy or freedom. It is a legitimate cause, particularly here, in the face of persistent colonialism that once tried to brutally eliminate or assimilate certain nations. I believe that we can achieve the same objective by changing what needs to be changed. This is another way of enabling first nations and Inuit peoples to regain some control when faced with the government's inability to fulfill its obligations. Obviously, we support that.

We also support first nations' efforts to move beyond the Indian Act. The ability to sign modern treaties that are implemented is precisely what allows them to escape this enduring paternalism. As was pointed out this year, this has been going on for 150 years, and I would even say it has been going on for more than 150 years, before Canada was even founded. Emancipation is of enormous importance to first nations, and non-indigenous people may not think about it because it is something they take for granted. When we talk about governance, we are talking about identity, culture, language and territory.

This is what the signing of treaties will promote. I am talking about self-governance, the empowerment of first nations themselves, and, beyond identity, everything related to opportunities for economic development, opportunities for social development, as well as environmental protection. The impact of signing modern treaties is enormous. It truly means achieving self-governance based on one's values and what a community needs to live differently.

As members know, we in the Bloc Québécois, as sovereignists, want to be able to make our own decisions about how to govern ourselves, how to protect our language, our culture, and the way of life we want for the people of Quebec, for our children and for future generations. I would therefore like to see indigenous communities and nations, as well as Inuit communities and the Inuit nation, have exactly the same opportunities when it comes to their emancipation from the Indian Act.

Since time is quickly running out, I will stop here when it comes to self-determination. I would like to add something that was mentioned in committee, which I found very interesting and which was, in fact, pointed out by a number of witnesses. Treaties may be ratified, but when it comes time to implement them, it becomes apparent that each department understands and interprets those treaties very differently. Obviously, the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and the Department of Indigenous Services are not the only departments involved. There are a number of departments affected by modern treaties that the government and first nations need to work with. Having a commissioner who can bridge the gap between the various departments and foster consistency in the understanding and interpretation of treaties could promote a faster and more coherent implementation of these treaties. I would even say that consistency could be improved, which would mean fewer disruptions between the various stages of the implementation process. I wanted to point that out.

I would also like to highlight a criticism that has been raised on several occasions. It is one that I have also heard in the House. Even if there is a commissioner to act as a watchdog, they will be a watchdog with no bite. Yes, they are there to ensure that the government fulfills its obligations under the treaties it has signed and pledged to implement, and they can point out if something is not working or needs to be addressed, but they cannot force the government to act. That is ultimately a matter for the executive branch. Of course, a report will be presented to the House, but it will then be left to the executive branch. That said, this bill is not the ultimate solution. However, those who drafted it were guided by a commendable and necessary principle, and we hope that, by applying additional pressure, we may encourage the government to make the choice—because I believe it is a matter of will—to implement treaties diligently and in the interests of the well-being of first nations.

That is why I am going to reiterate the Bloc Québécois's position: We are in favour of the bill. As I did at the beginning, and to bring things full circle, I will remind members that although we agree and would like for there to be a commissioner, we also wish there were no need to appoint a commissioner, in addition to the Auditor General, simply to ensure that the government honours its commitments. It is a bit unusual to say that, but, for my part, I already expect the government to do the work that is related to its obligations; that is the baseline. If a commissioner is to be appointed, we do not necessarily want there to be more structure; we want it to work properly. For that reason, I encourage the government to respect this bill and perhaps ensure that there is no need to call upon the commissioner.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs for her commitment to this bill.

I know that my colleague had a lot to say during her speech. I would like to invite her to talk a bit more about some of the testimony we heard in committee, particularly from the members of first nations in Quebec, about the impact of modern treaties and the frustrations that stem from the lack of commitment to modern treaties.

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

Mr. Speaker, three modern treaties already exist in Quebec. Those treaties were signed decades ago.

As for the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, the frustration among first nations stemmed from having to fight the government on unequal terms. First nations have to go to court to assert their rights and to point out that the government is not doing its job. They cannot believe this. A lot of time and money is being wasted, resources that first nations communities could put to good use, whether for education or health care, rather than spending it on legal proceedings against the government to force it to fulfill its obligations.