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.