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.