Debates of April 21st, 2026

Motions in Amendment

[Lori Idlout, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am very happy to represent Nunavummiut on this side of the House.

I was a parliamentarian when this bill was originally tabled in the 44th Parliament as Bill C-77, so I do have some history with this bill.

I would like to also acknowledge that we are on the unceded and unsurrendered territory of the Anishinabe people of these lands.

This bill is such an important bill because it was co-developed with modern treaty organizations. Indigenous modern treaty partners have worked hard to get this bill to this state. They have sought independent oversight and accountability mechanisms of the federal government to modern treaty implementation. We must honour their work and do what we can to get this bill passed. The modern treaty holders deserve to have their work reflected in the work we do as parliamentarians.

Canada is currently implementing 27 modern treaties. Of these 27 modern treaties, six include a comprehensive land claims settlement agreement, one includes only self-government provisions and is unrelated to any land claim, and 20 address both comprehensive land claims and self-government in some way. This is an important bill because of the accountability that would be sought and it would ensure the federal government meets its treaty obligations. Modern treaties are a constitutionally entrenched commitment between Crown and indigenous partners to build true nation-to-nation, Inuit-Crown and government-to-government relationships. An independent commissioner with audit and reporting powers could hold government departments to account and overcome long-standing inertia in treaty implementation. The commissioner would be important to ensure non-partisan oversight. Bill C-10 is important because it would advance reconciliation and self-determination through oversight and accountability of the federal government.

Modern treaties create stability and predictability over rights, lands and interests. The creation of the commission would help ensure better and timelier treaty implementation. It could reduce legal disputes and uncertainty, enabling indigenous economic participation.

I am disappointed to hear the Conservatives trying to diminish the important work of the modern treaty partners that co-developed this bill. Creating the commissioner is not just about creating bureaucracy. It is an added mechanism to ensure reconciliation. Just like in public safety, there is not only one office that ensures it. We do not only rely on the RCMP. We do not only rely on CSIS. We do not only rely on municipal law enforcement. That is the same for reconciliation with indigenous peoples. Reconciliation cannot only be completed by one department of the Government of Canada. Monitoring implementation cannot only be done by the Auditor General of Canada.

As an agent of Parliament, the independence of the office would be crucial to ensure that modern treaty nations and governments have a means to strengthen their relationship while avoiding legal action. Modern treaty holders have said at committee that the only recourse they have is to seek legal action. We all know how costly these legal actions become. Ensuring there is a better way to have modern treaty partners work with government departments through the commissioner would help to strengthen relationships so that the commissioner, as an independent oversight body, one that does not have party affiliations, would help ensure the independence reported by the commissioner to this Parliament and we would have records and debates about the important work the commissioner would do.

The commissioner's work would cover all federal activities related to modern treaty implementation. This includes work tied to the treaties themselves as well as associated self-government agreements or related arrangements. The commissioner would focus on whether federal action aligns with three core principles: one, strengthen relationships with treaty partners; two, advance the obligations and objectives outlined in agreements; and three, uphold the honour of the Crown through timely and effective implementation.

Reviews would be the commissioner's most flexible tool. It would be fit for purpose, which means the commissioner would be able examine many things, including a single federal activity, how multiple departments act on a shared obligation, recurring issues raised by one or multiple modern treaty partners, or systemic barriers that appear across agreements.

As has been mentioned by others in this House, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, NTI, has worked in partnership with the Land Claims Coalition to ensure that this bill was introduced. I commend it for its work to ensure that innate rights based on the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement are being implemented. We must do what we can to ensure that the many modern treaty holders who have worked hard are being heard. I appreciate all the work that's been done.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, from the other side of the House, we often hear the Conservatives being criticized all the way back to the Harper government. However, in dealing with indigenous treaties, the Harper government did not need a commissioner. Why is it that the Liberal government needs to add bureaucracy and costs such as the implementation of this new commissioner? Why is this commissioner needed?

[Lori Idlout, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I would remind the member that the Harper government is the same government that made huge cuts to programs that would have benefited indigenous peoples, like the Aboriginal Healing Foundation. Maybe those funds would not have been cut if we had had the commissioner back then. That highlights how important the work of the commissioner is.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by complimenting the member for Nunavut. Over the years, I found her to be exceptionally passionate with a caring heart in dealing with issues in an apolitical fashion. Her contributions to Parliament have been most impressive. I am looking forward to working with her on issues of such importance.

Northern Canada plays such a critical role to the future prosperity of indigenous people and to Canada as a whole. I am wondering if she could provide her thoughts in regards to why it is so important that we get it right and continue to push to get it right, to move forward.

[Lori Idlout, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, it really is very important to get it right. No matter what government we have, the prominence that is given to reconciliation will always have to exist because of where Canada resides. We are on indigenous peoples' lands, and we must always acknowledge it. That is why it is always important to say where we continue to do our work. The relationships we have with first nations, Inuit and Métis will always have to be long-standing relationships, and advancing reconciliation will always be something that we all have to continue to keep as a priority.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the member was part of the NDP, we had spoken. She has not really been the strongest supporter of natural resource projects in the north, specifically Nunavut. However, we know how natural resource jobs are incredibly important to residents of Nunavut. We are seeing some of these mines develop; it is a great thing for Nunavummiut and youth.

Does the member believe that adding a commissioner will actually enable more natural resource development and more jobs? Does she think it is going to be a positive for the economy of Nunavut?

[Lori Idlout, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, that is a bit of a confusing question. First of all, I should say that I have always been supportive of Inuit northerners who work in the mines in Nunavut. I have never spoken against the workers.

Of course, I have always placed prominence on making sure there are better relationships between mining companies and Inuit rights holders and indigenous rights holders. Once those relationships are strengthened, I think that we could definitely see better economic development opportunities for Inuit and for indigenous peoples who want to remain hunters and who want to make sure that wildlife is protected, and that we would do better to combat climate change.

With regard to the role of the commissioner, we need to make sure that it is created. The commissioner, as I said during my speech, would help make sure that the honour of the Crown is upheld. Being able to review that is going to be such an important function. That is why we need to make sure that the bill is passed right away.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the people's House today to address Bill C-10, in regard to appointing a commissioner for modern treaty implementation.

As I begin my remarks, I cannot help but think that we are yet again dealing with another announcement and a “no results in sight” type of proclamation. We continuously hear the members on the other side making grand announcements and pronouncements but with really no sincere or legitimate prospects of delivery. What we are hearing in the bill is, once again, a government that is high in the art of optics but really, really grades low as it relates to actual deliverables and measurable results.

I could not help but think of an old story I was told several years ago, before I was elected, by a gentleman who is quite astute, who follows politics in New Brunswick and nationally and has for some time. He told me this story a few years ago, and it came back to me as I was preparing my remarks. He said there is always a tell in politics. He said we can tell when we are being set up for something. I asked him what it was. I said, “Please, do tell.” He said that oftentimes we know we are being set up when in politics, a politician or parliamentarian or legislator sits us down and hears our story. They nod their head. They show an empathetic look and even a listening ear. They nod graciously, and they will agree occasionally. They will sigh when it is appropriate to sigh, and they will shake their head when it is appropriate to shake their head. They will look greatly concerned.

However, he said, we can tell for sure that probably not a whole lot is going to get done that matters or is consequential when they say they are seized with this matter, that they are laser focused on this matter and are absolutely consumed with this matter. They will say it is a high priority for them to make sure that this matter is dealt with. In fact, they are so concerned with this matter that they are going to put it under active study. They are going to establish a committee and a commission to further examine the problem that we have brought to them here today. He said, “Young man, I want to assure you, as soon as a politician or parliamentarian or legislator begins to talk like that, I can guarantee you that your issue is not their priority.”

I walked away from that meeting realizing I had probably heard a sound lesson in politics. How often have we heard in the House that the Liberals are laser focused on this matter, that they are seized with this issue, that this is of the utmost priority for the government, that they will put that under active study, enact another commission and appoint a commissioner to look at it? That commissioner has no real authority and does not really have any responsibility, but they want us to know they are seized with the issue, so we should take great comfort in that. Thus, I draw the conclusion that, likely, we had better take this particular pronouncement with a whole lot of salt.

I will go on further to say to Canadians that I know our aspirations may be good in this and our intentions may be well, but I hear, as it were, the old song that says what we are looking for is a little less talk and a whole lot more action. I find myself kind of thinking that what we are looking for is a little R-E-S-P-E-C-T. It is time that we had a little more respect and a little more action that is concrete, tangible and measurable, and that has results and metrics by which we can determine whether they have actually implemented the grandiose response to the urgent need before the House.

I will say that after all of this, I have come to the conclusion that the bill would be, once again, great in optics but probably not overwhelmingly successful in outcomes. I think what we want is to get to the place where outcomes are going to be the priority of any of these types of implementations. It is one thing that we have treaties, and that is important, and they need to be respected and acted upon. Modern treaties can be done. We know this can happen because under the previous Conservative government, no fewer than six treaties were implemented in five years, and believe it not, they did not have a commissioner. The Crown, the government and the minister took on their area of responsibility and implemented the treaty. Oh my land, it is an amazing concept. When that concept is embraced by our dear friends on the other side of the aisle, I know Canadians will be thrilled and satisfied with real results rather than yet another announcement of a grand commissioner and a grand commission to further examine, illustrate, study and review.

Let us come up with someone who is going to take action, and that can be the government or the minister, acting upon the treaties that are agreed to, to get real projects done that will enhance the lives of all Canadians, our indigenous friends as well as all Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I get excited about the potential of these things getting enacted.

However, like a lot of Canadians, I view this with a little skepticism when it comes to yet another proclamation of another layer of bureaucracy. We do not need another office established. We do not need another commission established. We do not need yet another person hired or more consultants hired or another grand project announced. What we need is action on what has already been laid out and put forward by many of our indigenous friends across the country, as well as those who have great insights: provincial governments, municipal governments and the private sector with projects they would like to undertake, in agreement and in accordance with our indigenous friends.

Why not start to implement those good ideas rather than establishing another layer of government? Let us get beyond that and start enacting these things. I think when we do, then Canadians will be encouraged.

I am going to conclude quickly. I could not help but think of a famous story, an ancient story. It goes back some time. As I was reflecting on my remarks today, I could not help but think of it. It is a story of a father who had two sons. He approached the first son, and he said, “Son, I need you to go and take care of this.” The first son, he was really matter-of-fact: “No, I can't do that. Sorry, I can't do it.” He ended up saying no, but the more he thought about it later, he felt bad. He repented of that and said, “I am going to go and do what's right,” and he ended up doing it. The second son, when he was approached by the father, enthusiastically said, “Oh yes, we're going to do this. I'll do it, Father. Don't you worry.” However, he decided not to do it. He said great things but did bad things. The other son did not have the right initial response, but he took the right action. Guess which son pleased the father. Obviously it was the first son. Even though his initial response was not good, he did the right thing in the end.

I believe our indigenous friends and our Canadian friends from coast to coast to coast are looking to us in this House. I know we have not always gotten it right, and I know it has not always been done right in the past, but let us do what is right now, turn from the things that are wrong, take the right steps, do a lot less talking and a lot more walking, and get things done that are right for Canada without another grand commission.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that our dear friend and colleague on the other side misses preaching at church. I almost enjoyed that and forgot that he was talking about not consulting.

This is actually the essence of the motion. He talked about our indigenous friends across Canada, and he talked about Harper. Harper did not consult indigenous communities when he made those cuts. We are providing the opportunity to consult Canadians.

As lovely as it was to listen to him talk, I think the member fails to answer the question of why we are consulting indigenous communities across Canada. Can the member talk about that? Why would he take that away from indigenous communities that are actually asking to be consulted to make sure that this happens?

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague on the other side of the aisle as well and enjoy our conversations.

I must say the position we are taking is with respect to removing yet another barrier to direct communications between those who want to put the actions into place and get the projects done. Why not have those direct consultations, those direct conversations with the ministers, the Crown and the indigenous peoples and then get the projects done? I think that removes a layer of bureaucracy that is not necessary at this time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member and I share a reverence for an old book that describes how when a nation has sins, it puts all the sins onto a goat and drives the goat out, and with it all the sins of the nation.

Does the member see the analogy here? When the government failed to live up to its treaty obligations, it put this commissioner up as its scapegoat.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I will say this with respect to scapegoating, which is an old practice for sure: someone else always ends up bearing the responsibility for the sins of others.

I think what is happening is that we are seeing a tendency in politics of late, and this can happen in any political party but is evidently in place here now, where it is always the fault of someone else, somewhere else, some other jurisdiction or some other nation somewhere around the world.

Real responsibility starts at home. We must get our own house in order so we can bring about change here. The real responsibility is here, in this House, with us making the right decisions for Canadians.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New Brunswick for that excellent speech. It has certainly been eye-opening, particularly for our members across the way. Despite the second son in that scenario he mentioned perhaps just being a Liberal, we know that good parents love their children whether they vote the way their parents do or not.

I wonder if the member down the way would describe in a bit of detail why he thinks the Liberals often get so addicted to the creation of additional bureaucracy to push more issues away from the decision-making of cabinet in order to deflect rather than take accountability for their actions and their own decisions.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, oftentimes when there are more layers between the ultimate decision-makers and those who are on the receiving end of those decisions, it is a means of protection, a means of shielding. The ultimate responsibility is when we peel back the layers and say that it is time we took action, took responsibility and got to work, because to delay and to further delay is to ultimately deny. What we need to do is get to where we take action and implement the modern treaties to help put in place the infrastructure that is going to help all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

[Lori Idlout, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, honestly, I am quite disgusted with the mockery and the way this debate is going. I am probably the only indigenous member in this Parliament at the moment. It is really unfortunate to hear the speech mock how hard indigenous partners have worked to ensure that this commission can be created. I would love an apology for how this member prefers to respect—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, by no means was any disrespect intended, ever, toward our indigenous friends. We are having a lively discussion about the implementation of a particular recommendation of government. I will say that we have had some of our indigenous friends and colleagues from this side of the House speak very adamantly and passionately against this proposal as well. That includes some indigenous friends who serve on this side of the House. I am sure they would not expect an apology—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have a point of order from the member for Brandon—Souris.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think you will reflect that the member for Nunavut questioned the attendance of certain members in the chamber in her comment, which was not a question, and that is, of course, against the rules of this place.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, the member did not mention anything of the sort. She called out what she felt were disrespectful comments from the member opposite, and she asked for an apology.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I listened carefully to what the member for Nunavut was saying—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Order. Let me finish the ruling.

There is a standing order that says one cannot make a reference to the presence or lack of presence of a member in the House of Commons. That is not what the member was referring to, in my understanding. She was reflecting on members' indigenous ancestry. Since I, as Speaker, do not know whether members have ancestry, nor would I assume anything, I saw nothing in her statement that infringed on the rules. I do invite members to reflect on the Standing Orders and the fact that we should not do indirectly what we cannot do directly. We should always be careful to abide by the rules. I did not hear anything that violated the rules.

That being said, now I will invoke Standing Order 10, which says that members cannot debate with the Speaker on the ruling.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

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

Mr. Speaker, I come to the House from the traditional territories of the Coast Salish peoples, including the Snuneymuxw First Nation and the Stz'uminus First Nation. We are also home to a thriving Mid Island Métis community. Getting to know people in these communities has deepened my understanding of the interconnectedness of people to the land, the human connection we all share and the link between our generation and both the past and the future. These concepts have been invaluable to me in shaping how I think about the work we do here in the House.

Therefore, I rise today to speak to Bill C-10, the commissioner for modern treaty implementation bill, in a spirit I hope all members of the House can share: a genuine commitment to reconciliation that is meaningful, reasonable and affordable for the people we serve. While there are no modern treaties currently being implemented in my riding, that does not mean that these issues are distant from us. As we move forward together, we will need outcomes that are clear, durable and widely understood. Most important, we will need to build genuine trust, not just through words but through consistent action over time.

Modern treaties aim to resolve broad claims and to create long-term certainty. They are meant to provide a stable foundation for partnership, economic development and self-determination. These are not symbolic documents. They are binding agreements negotiated in good faith that set out how land, resources and governance will work together for generations. When Canada signs a treaty, it makes a promise. That promise must be honoured, but there have been real problems in the implementation of these agreements. That is a serious concern, and it deserves a serious response.

As I contemplated this debate, I was reminded of a simple story about a village that once built a bridge across a wide river. The village people threw themselves into the task. They hired an engineer and achieved broad agreement on the design. The bridge was constructed, and when it was ready to use, the opening was celebrated by everyone because it promised to connect people and create opportunity. Satisfied with a job well done, the engineer moved on to other projects. One day, a little girl noticed some small cracks in the bridge and reported them to the village leaders, who convened a meeting to see what they should do. Some said the bridge was still strong and the cracks just needed to be filled in. Others said it needed to be replaced entirely. Committees were formed, and reports were written, but the cracks were left untouched. One day, after a heavy storm, the bridge simply gave way. In the end, the problem was not how the bridge was built. The problem was with the way it was maintained. When everyone is responsible for doing something, no one is responsible.

Modern treaties are meant to be that bridge. They are meant to connect people, resolve uncertainty and create a foundation upon which opportunity can be built and realized. If not properly implemented, no agreement can deliver the certainty or opportunity that it was designed to provide.

Bill C-10 attempts to remedy that problem, and I think all members of the House agree that Crown accountability is essential to reconciliation. We agree that Canada must meet its obligations, not just on day one but every day. We agree that transparency matters, and we agree that reconciliation must move beyond words to real results on the ground. There is less agreement on how best to achieve that.

Bill C-10 proposes the creation of a new federal bureaucracy, headed by a commissioner, to oversee the implementation of modern treaties. At first glance that may sound like a practical solution, but when we look more closely, we have to ask a simple question: Would this actually cause the federal government to fulfill its treaty obligations, or would it create yet another layer of bureaucracy mired in paperwork and backlogs, without delivering the outcomes people are waiting for?

Before I turn to that question, I want to address something that many Canadians are feeling right now. Across the country, and particularly in my home province of British Columbia, there is growing uncertainty and debate around DRIPA, UNDRIP and recent court decisions involving aboriginal rights and titles. Some of those concerns will come to this place, but not today. Bill C-10 is not about expanding rights, redefining land claims or changing property ownership. It would not create new treaties. It would not alter existing ones. It would not affect private property.

The bill would deal with a narrow question: Once a treaty is signed, will the federal government fulfill the commitments that it made in the treaty? When it does not, the bridge I spoke about collapses, resulting in conflict, protracted litigation, angst and more uncertainty. The concern with Bill C-10 is therefore not about whether accountability is needed, but whether this particular approach would deliver it.

Every one of these treaties has a dispute resolution mechanism. In the recent Musqueam agreement, it is right at the front, almost in anticipation that it will need to be referred to. Moreover, we already have an institution in this country whose sole purpose is to hold government to account. The Office of the Auditor General is independent and respected, and it has a clear mandate to examine whether government programs are achieving their intended results. Creating a place for the activities contemplated for the commissioner for treaty implementation within the Office of the Auditor General would make good use of the tools we already have, strengthened where necessary, rather than creating an entirely new bureaucracy.

This approach would preserve independence, avoid duplication and respect the need for fiscal responsibility, because we also have to be honest about the cost. Every new office comes with a price tag. Staff, administration and reporting structures all add up, in the case of this office, to about $10.6 million over four years. At a time when Canadians are facing real pressures, it is reasonable to ask whether those resources would be better directed toward actually implementing treaty commitments rather than creating all the trappings of yet another bureaucracy.

It is also reasonable to ask, as my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois repeatedly did during their speeches, whether the least expensive option here would be for the Crown and the minister to abide by and implement the treaty provisions so that this additional office would be unnecessary. Where is the ministerial accountability? That brings me to another concern that deserves attention and has been raised by many of my colleagues.

The proposed commissioner would have the ability to report and make recommendations, but not to compel action. If the government has failed to act on existing findings, what assurance do we have that another report and another office would change that? Reconciliation cannot become an exercise in process. It must be measured by progress. Meaningful reconciliation means honouring commitments in a timely and consistent way. Reasonable reconciliation means using existing institutions wisely, avoiding duplication and ensuring that accountability mechanisms are strong and effective. Affordable reconciliation means recognizing that resources are not unlimited and that every dollar spent on administration is a dollar not spent on housing, infrastructure or economic opportunity. These principles are not in conflict with reconciliation; they are essential to it.

Many modern treaty nations support the bill. Their voices matter, their experience matters and their frustration with the modern treaty implementation process is entirely justified. We should listen carefully to what they are saying, but listening also means asking whether the proposed solution would deliver what is needed. Listening means making sure the cracks in the bridge are addressed, not just talked about, studied or reported on. If we are serious about implementing modern treaties, then the Crown should implement them. The minister should focus on clear timelines, measurable outcomes and consequences when commitments are not met.

Reconciliation must bring people together. It must build trust, not erode it. The commissioner should not be a way to avoid ministerial or governmental accountability. That is the spirit in which I approach Bill C-10. The path forward must be practical, effective and focused on results, because at the end of the day, reconciliation is not about creating offices in Ottawa, but about building and maintaining the bridges that we build in a way that makes people even more confident about building bridges, so that we can continue to do that in a way that ensures that the promises behind them remain strong for generations to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat disheartening that the Conservative Party has taken the position of deleting the entire bill, showing its opposition to something that would be really important in Canadian society. Having a commissioner for modern treaty implementation would be a positive thing. I genuinely believe that the general feeling among indigenous leaders and beyond is supportive, recognizing that the commissioner could play a critical role in advancing modern treaties.

I understand why it is, because it has been very clear that the Conservatives oppose it. It is unfortunate. Does the hon. member believe that she is onside with a majority of the indigenous communities?