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.