Debates of April 21st, 2026

Motions in Amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to Bill C-10, the commissioner for modern treaty implementation act, there is a concern about creating a new office. It is an extra layer of bureaucracy and cost, not a guarantee of meaningful change.

With this concern, I was wondering if the Bloc Québécois have similar concerns about how the Liberal government will add bureaucracy and costs.

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

Mr. Speaker, this has indeed been raised in the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs on several occasions; I mentioned it earlier. Ideally, this would not even be necessary if the government were fulfilling its obligations; we would not need an additional layer of oversight. As we have said, it is a watchdog with no bite. I have said it before: The commissioner will have no teeth. We hope it works. It may be wishful thinking, but we should be able to rely on the government to fulfill its obligations. Then we would not need a commissioner.

I think it is worth pointing this out but, at the same time, first nations want a commissioner and are counting on this to put pressure on the government to act more swiftly. We will see if that is the case, and perhaps this will come back to the House so we can add something else—perhaps give the commissioner more teeth—or simply realize that it has not worked and see what needs to be done to ensure that the treaties are actually implemented.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, which was interesting, important and relevant, as usual.

I also note that there seems to be a fundamental problem with this bill. We should not need to make legislation to tell the government to do its job, to monitor it and to make sure it is doing it. At the same time, I see that the commissioner will have no teeth. There will be no penalties.

Does my colleague think there might be a link between these two ideas? A government that needs to have legislation to monitor what it is doing might be a tad uncomfortable with the idea of giving teeth to its watchdog. That could become troublesome. Is there a link between these two ideas?

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

Mr. Speaker, of course, that is speculation. When I try to be empathetic and put myself in the government's shoes, I would obviously prefer that the commissioner not have any teeth.

However, the government has obligations, and I hope it will be responsible and meet them. I completely agree with my colleague from Rivière‑du‑Nord on this matter. When we vote for a bill, we hope that it will not hurt us too much if we know we are not meeting our own responsibilities.

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

Mr. Speaker, kwe kwe, ullukkut, taanshi, bonjour, hello.

Before I begin, I want to acknowledge that Canada's Parliament is located on the unceded and unsurrendered traditional territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin people.

To understand the opportunity before us today, we need to look honestly at the history that brought us here. For centuries, treaties have been the foundation of that relationship. In the 18th century, the peace and friendship treaties were meant to restore stability after conflict. Later, treaties signed after 1763 opened much of this country to non-indigenous settlement in exchange for specific rights and benefits, such as annuities, reserve lands and commitments. These agreements, now known as the historic treaties, were followed by decades of colonial policies. We acknowledge those truths as part of our shared journey of reconciliation.

A new era began in 1973 with the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in the Calder case. The Nisga'a Tribal Council sought recognition of their title to their homelands. After the case was dismissed on a technicality, the court affirmed that aboriginal title existed before colonialization. That recognition pushed Canada to create its first land claims policy.

This shift set the stage for the first modern treaty, the 1975 James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. The Cree and Inuit negotiated this agreement after Hydro-Québec attempted to develop their lands without consultation. The treaty acknowledged their rights and created a new model for treaty-making in Canada. In 1982, the Constitution affirmed the rights of indigenous peoples and recognized that future agreements, including modern treaties, would continue to define those rights.

However, challenges persisted. The 1996 report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples found that Canada lacked the structures needed to oversee treaty implementation and recommended to create an implementation office to support the renewed relationship. For over 20 years, calls for stronger oversight grew louder.

In 2003, the Land Claims Agreements Coalition was formed, and shortly thereafter began to advocate for an independent oversight body. In 2008, the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples urged the government to work with indigenous partners to establish an independent commission, through legislation, to oversee the implementation of modern treaties.

That history and effort that began over 20 years ago is what led to the co-development process that produced the legislation before us today. At the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs during study of Bill C-10, indigenous leaders described how these long-standing challenges continue to show up in practice.

Chief Troy Sam, chief councillor of the Kitsumkalum Band Council, reminded that “implementation is not theoretical” and that it affects on-the-ground decisions regarding lands, resources and governance every day. Nicole Rempel of K'ómoks First Nation highlighted that “Implementation determines whether governance functions effectively and whether economic development can proceed with confidence” and underscored the importance of predictability and addressing issues early.

These stories reflect a pattern seen across modern treaty nations. While commitments are negotiated in good faith, there is still work to do to strengthen consistency in how they are implemented and to fully realize their intended benefits.

In March 2023, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada began a focused co-development effort with modern treaty partners. Much of this work took place through the modern treaty implementation policy working group, which brought together representatives from most of the 27 modern treaties and federal officials. Partners who preferred other engagement methods were consulted through their own chosen approaches.

Key principles guided this work together. The commissioner was designed to be an independent body that reports to Parliament and holds government to account, with a mandate focused specifically on modern treaties. It is grounded in independence, objectivity, impartiality and expert knowledge, with the authority to require departments to provide the information necessary to carry out its mandate.

In terms of scope, the commissioner was designed to address persistent challenges in awareness, understanding and action on modern treaty implementation across all federal departments and agencies by providing independent and expert oversight. The commissioner would provide whole-of-government independent oversight to improve awareness, understanding and action across the federal public service of modern treaty obligations, objectives and relationships.

To support this, the commissioner's core functions would include reviews, performance audits and briefings. That is why the structure of the commissioner matters. The role was designed to be independent, with the ability to look across departments, identify and analyze systemic issues and provide clear public reporting to Parliament. Grounded in this co-development design and shared set of principles, the next step was to move forward with establishing the commissioner.

At the second annual Intergovernmental Leaders' Forum in May of 2024, the Prime Minister announced the intention to establish an independent oversight body led by a commissioner for modern treaty implementation, an agent of Parliament. This marked a significant shift in the modern treaty relationship, reflecting a shared commitment to accountability and partnership.

Following that announcement, the draft legislative proposal was shared with more than 130 partners, including modern treaty partners, groups negotiating modern treaties, self-government partners, national indigenous organizations, regional organizations, provincial and territorial governments and others. The goal was simple: to ensure that every partner with an interest in the commissioner's work had the opportunity to engage on this legislation.

The consultations took place between May and July of 2024. In total, more than 100 proposed changes were submitted. Several themes emerged. Indigenous partners must be involved in the commissioner's work at the same level as federal institutions. Stronger consultation requirements were needed throughout the legislation, including with the independent review process. The commissioner's mandate needed to clearly include agreements that supported modern treaties, such as self-government and fiscal arrangements. These insights shaped the proposed legislation before us.

Partners have been clear in their support. Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated stated, “The creation of a Commissioner...demonstrates a real step towards genuine collaboration from Canada.” The Tłı̨chǫ Government said that this is an exciting moment and that their hard work has paid off.

The Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations met with modern treaty leadership to review the revisions. Partners expressed strong support and urged Canada to move forward quickly. Legislation to create a commissioner was introduced in October 2024. Although prorogation of Parliament paused the legislative process, indigenous modern treaty partners consistently called for the reintroduction of this legislation. They want this legislation passed. They helped build it, and they see it as a major step forward in strengthening the treaty relationship.

At committee, indigenous leaders spoke favourably about the proposed legislation. They positively described the co-development process. They emphasized that the bill reflects decades of advocacy. They spoke about the commissioner's ability to strengthen relationships, improve coordination across departments and help prevent disputes from escalating to litigation. They also highlighted the importance of a whole-of-government approach and the need for consistent, specialized oversight, which is something the Auditor General, with a broad mandate, cannot provide. These perspectives reflect a shared belief that the commissioner is a needed institution, one that modern treaty partners have consistently called for over the past two decades.

This legislation represents a key milestone. It responds to more than 20 years of calls from modern treaty partners for greater accountability and oversight. It delivers on our commitments in Canada's collaborative modern treaty implementation policy. It reflects the combined co-development efforts of Canada and modern treaty partners, and it strengthens the foundation for a renewed relationship between the Crown and indigenous people.

Modern treaties drive social, cultural and economic growth. They are a key thread in Canada's constitutional fabric. They create economic opportunities for indigenous partners and all people in Canada, including on projects relevant to the One Canadian Economy Act, which integrated indigenous leadership into national infrastructure and climate planning. They are essential to building a stronger, more resilient country.

Today, we have the opportunity to honour those commitments. I ask members of the House to vote yes on this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a really simple yes-or-no question for the parliamentary secretary.

Would this commissioner be necessary at all if her department simply lived up to its treaty obligations?

[Ginette Lavack, Liberal, St. Boniface—St. Vital, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada and all departments in this government are doing the work of implementing these modern treaties to the best of their extent. However, there are numerous modern treaties and risks of even more significant new ones being signed. We need help to do the work effectively.

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

Mr. Speaker, based on the testimony and her experience through this process, how does the parliamentary secretary distinguish the role of an independent modern treaty commissioner versus that of the Auditor General? Certainly the most frequent objection that we hear from members of the opposition party is that the bill would just be adding another layer of bureaucracy, so I think it would be helpful to make that distinction.

[Ginette Lavack, Liberal, St. Boniface—St. Vital, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what we have seen repeatedly through the testimony that we heard was the need for this independent distinctive body that has the knowledge and expertise to oversee the implementation of these modern treaties. Furthermore, the Auditor General is on one review and then on to the next audit and the next audit.

An independent commissioner tasked with only looking at modern treaties would also be able to help educate departments across government, which all have obligations to follow through. That ongoing relationship, as well as communication between departments and the commissioner, would really help to realize the full extent of these treaties.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, here is a list of what we currently have: the modern treaty implementation office, the assessment of modern treaty implications office, the performance measurement framework, the modern treaties management environment office, the deputy minister's oversight committee and the reconciliation secretariat. We also have the Auditor General reports.

How would the new commissioner solve any problems, other than by creating more reports than seven offices already generate? Here is a radical idea: Maybe the parliamentary secretary to the minister could enforce these offices doing their jobs.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Before I recognize the parliamentary secretary, I would just remind members to not use props in the chamber.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services.

[Ginette Lavack, Liberal, St. Boniface—St. Vital, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as we have heard, despite the efforts currently in place, there seems to be systemic issues that we are trying to resolve. With the implementation of a specific commissioner tasked solely with educating government departments about the implications of treaties, their implementation and what is needed, that ongoing oversight conversation, development and education across the board would really help to put the necessary resources in the right places to move these things forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, we obviously agree that it is important to implement modern treaties. Although we support Bill C-10, in a way it is also disappointing that we have had to resort to this measure to ensure that the treaties are properly implemented.

This legislation establishes an office of a commissioner. The commissioner will be able to make recommendations and submit a report. However, this commissioner lacks any real authority. I would like my colleague to explain to me, in practical and technical terms, what the consequences would be for a government if it simply decided to ignore the commissioner's recommendations.

[Ginette Lavack, Liberal, St. Boniface—St. Vital, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think that what sets the commissioner apart in this situation is the fact that their one and only task will be to monitor treaties. That will create an ongoing dialogue on the monitoring of each treaty. In other cases, people look over a report and move on to the next one. No continuous monitoring is done to ensure that everyone is aware of their responsibilities and that real progress is made on these advances.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, Natural Resources; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, International Development.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the great privilege of representing the people of Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, who put their trust in me for the seventh time almost a year ago. I am very proud to have represented Wendake as part of my riding for 18 years, including my time in provincial politics.

I have the privilege of representing the Wendat community in the House of Commons, and I had the privilege of representing them in the National Assembly before that. I am particularly proud because I am rising today to speak to a bill that directly concerns first nations. Later on in my speech, we will see that Max Gros-Louis, the Wendat Grand Chief of the 1960s and 1970s, played a key role in what we are talking about today.

We are here to talk about the creation of a commissioner for modern treaties. Modern treaties are agreements that have been in place for about 50 years between first nations and government authorities at the provincial and federal levels. I want to reassure everyone, particularly first nations, that we fully support modern treaties.

Moreover, when the Right Hon. Stephen Harper led Canada with a majority government, he signed five modern treaties. However, in the 10 years that followed, under a government that claimed there was nothing more important than relations with first nations, not a single modern treaty was concluded. Is this not a crystal-clear demonstration of the fact that Mr. Trudeau's Liberal government talked a good game but failed to deliver on concrete projects? There is no example more obvious than this. Modern treaties are about economic development with first nations. None were signed during the Trudeau era, but there were five during the Harper era.

We Conservatives have very serious reservations about creating a commissioner position. I cannot mention that he is behind me, because I am not allowed to say whether members are in the House, but the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix already pointed out very clearly last November, at the start of the debate on the bill, that we have enough bureaucracy in Canada and we do not need to add to it.

It is worth noting that over the past 10 years, 100,000 new government employees have been hired. In addition, $20 billion was spent annually on consultations. Why add a further burden to the management of the federal government and relations with first nations when there are already several mechanisms in place to evaluate and monitor treaties? There is no need to create a new layer of red tape and administrative burden. For us Conservatives, first nations are partners in prosperity. That is why we must promote modern treaty agreements for first nations, for their development and for the development of Canada as a whole.

Let us take a moment to look back on how modern treaties got their start. I believe Quebec truly served as a testing ground for modern treaties. In the 1950s, there was a major expansion of hydroelectric potential in Canada and Quebec. Under the leadership of the government of the time, large dams, such as Bersimis-1 and Bersimis-2, were built from scratch in 1953 and 1956.

Then, in 1956, Hydro‑Québec was tasked with exploiting the hydroelectric potential of two big rivers: Rivière aux Outardes and Rivière Manicouagan. In 1958, Hydro‑Québec broke ground on what would become, for all time, an iconic manifestation of Quebeckers' national pride: the Manic-5 generating station. That started in 1958.

Of course, Manic-5, Manicouagan, Bersimis and so on were on indigenous land, but, at the time, there was nothing at all, no agreement with first nations. People showed up, they dug, they brought in machinery and they built a dam, thanks very much, good night. Nothing was offered to first nations. It was not until 1965 that Premier Jean Lesage offered compensation to the nation located near Manic-5. He offered compensation in the amount of $150,000, and that was that. That was how things were handled back then.

Then, in 1971, Liberal Premier Robert Bourassa came on the scene with his project of the century. During the Liberal Party's April 1971 convention, which took place at the Colisée de Québec, he marked his government's first election victory by launching the project of the century: developing James Bay. The plan was to literally double Quebec's hydroelectric potential with a $5‑billion project. Everything was fine and dandy, full steam ahead and, once again, first nations were not consulted. Nobody talked to them.

That is when a young Cree indigenous leader, Billy Diamond, raised the issue and succeeded in uniting the Cree people from across the territory. He did so with the support and assistance of the Indians of Quebec Association, whose spokesperson at the time was Max Gros-Louis, the Grand Chief of the Wendat, or the Huron, as they were known at the time. He took the case to court and on November 15—a very important day in Quebec history, and I am not talking about November 15, 1976, but rather November 15, 1973—Judge Malouf of the Superior Court of Quebec ruled in favour of the Cree. He declared that work on James Bay had to stop immediately. For the first time, a judge ruled in a specific case, regarding a specific project and a specific construction site, that first nations must be respected before breaking ground.

A week later, the Quebec Court of Appeal overturned that decision, noting that negotiations between the government and first nations are absolutely essential. It was then that the serious discussions got under way, though not without drawing widespread criticism.

Some people went so far as to say that it was not true that indigenous peoples were going to hold back Quebec's economic development, but that was not the issue at all. It was not a matter of holding back development, but rather of creating wealth together so that everyone could contribute to and benefit from it, while respecting the inherent rights, dating back a century, if not millennia, of the first nations who lived on this land. The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement was signed in 1975. According to some records, it was signed on November 11, 1975. Other sources say it was November 15, 1976. In any case, November is a significant month for what we are discussing today. It was the first agreement, the first modern treaty, and others followed.

It is also clear that this first agreement is being celebrated 50 years on, as this was when the government acknowledged the importance of first nations. It offered $225 million for the following 20 years, but it also gave the people living in that territory the tools they needed to develop their social and educational capacities, as well as their capacity for wealth creation, job creation and economic activity. That is why we now see a much stronger entrepreneurial spirit in many indigenous communities than we have seen in the past. Modern treaties have provided that impetus.

As I was saying, 26 treaties have been signed since the James Bay agreement. Five were signed under the Harper government and, unfortunately, none were signed in the following 10 years. I believe we need to sign more treaties. Yes, we need to do more to develop as partners in prosperity with first nations.

In closing, I want to remind members that I am very proud to represent the people of Wendake. Let us not forget that, historically speaking, the Wendat people have always been traders, even before the arrival of Europeans, but also after. The Wendat people have always made a name for themselves for their entrepreneurial spirit. Today, I am very proud to say that there are 150 businesses operating in Wendake. This nation is also involved with other private partners, like Structure SBL, Immostar, Wendake Construction and the Hôtel-Musée Premières Nations.

The Wendat people are a proud people that I am honoured to represent. They are an inspiration to all first nations and all Canadians. Indeed, we can and must work together closely for the prosperity of our country and for the prosperity of first nations. That can and must be done through modern treaties. Let us continue to do things right and, above all, let us empower first nations to achieve their full potential in terms of their heritage and the economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, the legislation is very straightforward.

I think there is a general feeling among the different communities, in particular the indigenous communities, from what I understand, that there is a true value in modern-day treaty implementation agreements and in having a commissioner who is truly independent and reports back to Parliament. There would be checks and balances in place to ensure that we, as a government, were moving forward on such an important and critical file to the nation.

My understanding of the principle the Conservatives are taking on the issue is that they do not believe there is a need for an independent commissioner. I would ask the member if that is correct.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the question by the member from Winnipeg is a very interesting one, because, yes, we do support a modern treaty all the way, and we need more of those kinds of treaties. What we are opposing is another level of bureaucracy, with the commissioner. We have all the people in the government getting involved in that right now, and we are sure they can do the job they want the commissioner to do without having to create a new position.

Let me remind members that in the 1960s, the Liberal Party, under Pierre Elliott Trudeau, was on the side that wanted to cancel the Indian Act and the Indian reserve system. Finally, the government backtracked and did not do that. Jean Chrétien, a former prime minister who was the Indian affairs minister at the time, which is how the minister was identified, gave 500—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith has the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague a simple question. Would this new bureaucracy be necessary if the government and the ministers were fulfilling their obligations under these treaties?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure, an honour and a joy to respond in French to this extremely well-articulated question asked in French by my colleague from British Columbia, whom I hold in the highest regard. I really enjoy working with her.

We do not think that we need a commissioner. The public servants who currently work for the federal government on first nations affairs can do the work and ensure that modern treaties are properly monitored.

However, we need modern treaties. That is why we are asking the government to move forward, create real projects and deliver real results, rather than just giving us rhetoric.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I sit on the public accounts committee with my colleague, and that committee is ultimately there to make an account of the taxpayer dollars. What are his thoughts on spending $10.6 million over the next four years of taxpayer money to do the job that a parliamentary secretary, minister and six other agencies currently do, or should be doing?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Hamilton's question is right on target. We spend too much money right now, so that is why we cannot invest all the money where we need it. We do not have to hire other people and create another level of bureaucracy. Millions of dollars could be invested in the development of first nations instead of in the development of bureaucracy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will rephrase the question that I asked earlier since I did not get an answer from the Liberals.

Through this bill, the government is creating an office for a commissioner whose decisions will not be binding. Under this legislation, what will the consequences be if the government fails to respect the commissioner's recommendations?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the reasons why we are not in favour of creating a new bureaucracy to support first nations. What first nations need is a lot more breathing room and a lot more support to create even more wealth.

We want more modern treaties, but to do that, we need real projects and real results.