It is an honour to be back in the House after summer. Welcome back, Mr. Speaker. I trust that you had a good summer, and if you will indulge me for a moment, I would like to welcome all of my colleagues back, on both sides of the House. I hope everybody had a great summer and was able to get back to their ridings and talk to a lot of people.
I certainly had that opportunity. I heard a lot of stories from people, and unfortunately, people are still struggling. People are struggling with the cost of living and groceries and the high price of rent, gas, clothing and things like that. Safety is another thing I heard about a lot, such as crime, drug use and homelessness, and just struggling with the state of our economy in general. Youth are having such a hard time finding good-paying jobs, and raises are not keeping up with inflation. I am sure all of us heard these stories, including my Liberal colleagues on the other side.
My goal when I am here representing the people of Saskatoon West is to save them money and make their lives better. When we look at legislation like Bill C-10, the lens I use is this. Would it help people in that way? Would it save people money? Would it make their lives more affordable and easier? We have a Conservative plan to restore the promise of an affordable, safe and independent Canada that saves people money, saves jobs, keeps people safe, fixes immigration and puts Canada first. I am curious about whether this bill would actually do any of these things.
We are now at the third reading of Bill C-10, the commissioner for modern treaty implementation act. At this stage, the question is no longer whether the subject matters; of course it does. The implementation of modern treaties matters. The honour of the Crown matters. The relationship between Canada and indigenous peoples matters. The question is whether the mechanism in this bill would actually produce better results.
Bill C-10 would create a new commissioner for modern treaty implementation and a supporting office. The commissioner would review and report on how federal institutions are implementing modern treaties. Supporters argue that an independent officer can shine a light on failures and give treaty partners another means of holding Ottawa accountable. I understand that argument, but when I spoke at second reading, I raised a basic concern that remains today, which is that identifying failure is not the same as correcting failure.
Bill C-10 went to committee and was reported back to the House without any amendments, so the core questions remain. If a federal department is behind on a treaty obligation, what changes the next morning? If a minister has failed to meet an obligation, what requires action? If the same failure appears year after year, who is responsible for fixing it? Those are not arguments against accountability. They are questions about how accountability produces action.
Bill C-10 is specifically about modern treaties. It is not a general solution to every challenge facing indigenous people in Canada, and we should not pretend that it is. I represent a riding where indigenous issues are not theoretical. According to the 2021 census, nearly 30,000 people in Saskatoon identified as indigenous, so the work we do here in Ottawa should make a real impact on the lives of people in Saskatoon.
This debate also takes place at an important time of the year. On September 30, Canadians will mark the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation and Orange Shirt Day. It is a day to honour residential school survivors, their families and their communities. It is also a time to reflect on the lasting consequences of government policy toward indigenous peoples.
For me, reconciliation has to include truth, respect and action. Truth means being honest about our history. Respect means listening seriously to indigenous people and respecting treaty commitments. Action means delivering tangible results, such as food and clothing people can afford, better housing, economic opportunities and jobs, access to education and treatment, strong local services and governments that keep their word.
That brings me to something I saw first-hand this summer. I travelled to East Hastings Street in Vancouver. I visited Green Road Park in the Halifax region. I do not have to travel across the country to see the same human suffering. I can see the effects of addiction regularly around 20th Street in my own riding of Saskatoon West. What I saw this summer was not an abstract policy debate. I saw people living outside, caught in addiction. I saw communities struggling with disorder, poverty, mental illness and illicit drugs. I saw first-hand how illicit drugs can ravage individuals and destabilize communities. It reinforced for me just how vulnerable some off-reserve indigenous people can be when addiction, homelessness, mental illness and poverty collide.
The evidence in my own city should concern every one of us. Saskatoon's 2025 point-in-time homelessness count identified 1,900 people experiencing homelessness, and of the people surveyed, 83% identified as indigenous. That is a staggering overrepresentation. We see similar vulnerability when we look at the toxic drug crisis in British Columbia. The First Nations Health Authority reported that although first nations people represented approximately 3.4% of British Columbia's population, they represented 16% of toxic drug poisoning deaths in 2025.
Those numbers do not mean that every indigenous person experiencing homelessness suffers from addiction. They do not mean that every person suffering from addiction is homeless. We should not make assumptions like that about anybody or about who is involved. They do demonstrate that indigenous people are dramatically overrepresented among some of the most vulnerable Canadians living at the intersection of these crises. When we speak about reconciliation, that reality has to matter too.
There is an important connection here to Bill C-10. Modern treaty implementation is important, but for an indigenous person sleeping outdoors in Saskatoon, Vancouver or Dartmouth, a new office in Ottawa is not a treatment bed. It is not affordable food or stable housing. It is not a counsellor or a job. It is difficult for me to see how a new bureaucracy in Ottawa would help put food on the table in Saskatoon or save an indigenous family money when they pay their rent. We must honour treaty commitments, and we must respond to the urgent human needs directly in front of us.
My approach to addiction policy is that it should ultimately be oriented toward recovery. That does not mean pretending addiction is simple, because it is not. People have unique needs, and recovery can take time. Relapse can happen, but surely the goal should be to help people regain control of their lives and, wherever possible, escape destructive addiction.
That is why the Conservatives have put forward proposals centred on treatment and recovery. Last election, the Conservative Party proposed federal funding to create 50,000 treatment opportunities for Canadians seeking recovery from addiction. Conservative MPs have also put legislation before Parliament aimed at making treatment a more meaningful part of the justice system. We introduced Bill C-231, which would give youth justice courts additional options to connect young people with problematic substance use treatment. We introduced Bill C-240, the offender rehabilitation act. That bill proposes additional rehabilitation and addiction treatment measures within the criminal justice and corrections systems.
These proposals reflect an important distinction. We should distinguish between the person trapped in addiction and the criminal organization or trafficker who profits from that addiction. A person in the grip of addiction needs a path toward recovery. A dealer or organized criminal network deliberately trafficking fentanyl presents a different problem, requiring law enforcement and criminal accountability. Those are different situations, and government policy should be capable of recognizing the difference.
It is good to see a shift to recovery-oriented solutions. That can mean intervention, when someone is in immediate danger, or detox, treatment and long-term recovery supports. I have seen examples of that recovery-oriented thinking right at home. The Saskatoon Tribal Council implemented a program that meets people on the streets and in encampments. The program is called Sawēyihtotān, which is a Cree word that means “to bless each other”. Staff provide wellness checks, food and cultural supports. They advocate for detox beds. They connect people with emergency shelters. The program provides pathways toward transitional and supportive sober housing. That is worth paying attention to. It does not write people off. It meets people where they are. Crucially, it also helps to move them somewhere better.
To me, that is compassion with a destination. That same principle should inform how we think about reconciliation. The government should not measure success by how many structures it creates, how many reports it publishes or how much process it generates. We should measure whether people are actually better off. Are treaty commitments being fulfilled? Are people finding housing? Are young people finding opportunities? Are people trapped in addiction getting access to treatment? Are communities becoming safer? Are families being reunited? Those are outcomes Canadians can understand.
The commissioner created by Bill C-10 may provide useful information. Reviews and performance audits may help Parliament identify where treaty implementation is failing, but the commissioner would not replace ministers. The commissioner would not implement treaties. The commissioner would not build housing, operate treatment centres or deliver the services that people depend on. Those responsibilities would remain with government and the institutions that already possess the authority to act. Were the commissioner to identify a problem, the responsible minister should have to answer plainly. What is the problem? Who is responsible? What is being done? When will it be fixed? That is meaningful accountability.
As September 30 approaches, we should remember that reconciliation is not something Parliament completes by passing one bill. It is a continuing responsibility. It is found in whether treaty promises are honoured and whether governments listen. It is found in what happens on the ground, in places like 20th Street in Saskatoon West and in communities right across the country, where people are trying, every day, to build safer, healthier and more hopeful lives. That is a standard I will continue to apply to Bill C-10 and to the broader work of reconciliation.