Debates of Sept. 21st, 2026

Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today. This is the first time that I am rising this fall, and I realized this morning that this is the 11th year that I have had the privilege and honour of coming to the House to serve the people of Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan. I want to give a shout-out to them. I met people all across my immense riding this summer, and I want to assure my constituents that I am still passionate and enthusiastic about representing them. That is what I will do during this parliamentary session, which certainly looks like it will be a very exciting and busy one, even though it may not seem that way yet. I imagine there will be some twists and turns.

I represent a huge riding where 15% of the population is indigenous. Of course, seeing as I am the critic for indigenous and northern affairs, this bill is of particular interest to me. I am therefore pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-10, an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation. The Bloc Québécois said right from the start that we support this bill. Now, at third reading, following the study in committee, we still support this bill, which I must point out is the result of a request from first nations and Inuit.

This bill reflects these communities' request for a commissioner or some structure to serve as their watchdog for modern treaty implementation. This is something they have been asking for for years—more than 20 years, in fact. Today's topic of discussion is something that has been called for for decades. If I may briefly digress, I would point out that the same can be said of practically all bills and topics brought before the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs: that they have been called for for decades. That is a really long time to wait for results. Now, having reached third reading, we are on the verge of achieving a result. I therefore urge all of my colleagues to vote in support of this bill, despite the criticism we heard in the speeches. Obviously, we are here for the same purpose: to critique the bill by analyzing its weaknesses.

First nations and Inuit have been calling for the creation of a body to hold the federal government accountable, because some of its obligations have been objectively unmet. This has been going on for decades. It is discouraging for first nations and a waste of their resources, which is obviously something we would like to avoid. I will come back to that later. The bill to create the position of commissioner for modern treaty implementation would help reduce these delays, or at least, that is our hope, and that is the intent of the bill. It would ensure that less time, resources and energy are wasted on processes that should be conducted not necessarily quickly, but efficiently.

I think we all know that we would not be discussing this bill today if the federal government were actually fulfilling its obligations. First nations and Inuit are simply asking for what is rightfully theirs. They are being told that the government is going to work on modern treaties and sign treaties and that this work will continue for several years to come. If the government had been committed to this and had worked diligently, always in consultation with first nations, treaties would have been signed faster and there would have been no need to go to court, for example, to resolve certain issues. I would say that this bill is a step in the right direction, specifically toward delivering the accountability required of the government when signing a treaty and ensuring seamless implementation of modern treaties.

Obviously, even beyond this specific bill, the Bloc Québécois supports self-determination for nations. We know that this bill is the result of a commitment to reconciliation, which we also agree with. This is one measure that could improve the situation. We still hear about colonialism and assimilation today. This is something the government can do to break the cycle. Based on that principle alone, without going into the details of the bill itself, this is another reason why the Bloc Québécois supports the bill, that is, to move the government away from its paternalistic approach, which, obviously, dates back to the beginning of Canada's history and even before that.

In committee, we heard testimony about the bill from several first nations. Naturally, they are all in favour of this bill being passed, particularly given that it was co-drafted. First nations and Inuit were consulted when the bill was being drafted in order to ensure it reflects their wishes and expectations. Several organizations told us that the federal government is stepping back from implementing treaties or is only implementing them in part. That is why they want a commissioner. The government is failing to honour its own commitments to first nations and Inuit communities. They want to cast off the shackles of colonialism, but they cannot because the government that should be helping them is in fact putting obstacles in their way. I am paraphrasing, but that is what we were told in committee.

I just realized that I am only on page three out of 10, and I may not have enough time, so I will have to cut my speech short.

In short, the testimony we heard leaves the impression that the federal government is signing treaties to try to satisfy first nations or that, at the very least, it is working on drafting treaties, but the work is extremely slow. As I was saying earlier—and I will say it again, because it is important—the issue of money often came up in committee. Communities have to pay thousands of dollars to take the federal government to court in hopes of winning their case. As I said, that takes a lot of resources, both financial and human, and it really gets the communities' hopes up.

People sometimes forget this, but these communities do not have millions of inhabitants. They are sometimes very small communities that obviously do not have the same resources as the federal government. This is really David versus Goliath. They are like dwarves going up against giants. It is very difficult for first nations or Inuit communities to see these extremely demanding legal proceedings through to the end. These communities sometimes have a fairly small population, and, as I was saying, they do not have all the necessary means. As I said, these cases can sometimes drag on for decades. It is easy to imagine the consequences that these legal costs can have on the communities. These are financial choices that they also have to make.

First nations and Inuit also pointed out in committee that the commissioner will not have any enforcement powers. The Bloc Québécois also raised that same criticism of this bill. Yes, the commissioner is there to act as a watchdog for treaty implementation. They can shine a light on shortcomings, such as departments' lack of understanding or the government's inability to act in the best interests of nations that want to be able to use their resources to help, but that is not enough. The commissioner cannot force the government to act.

The trouble is that, although the commissioner can draw attention to what is not working, there is not necessarily an immediate solution. In fact, this goes beyond the government's mere willingness to act, even though we agree that, without this willingness, there would be no results at all. There is work to do on understanding modern treaty implementation, as we heard at committee. Aside from the government itself, the departments are also involved. As one might expect, treaty implementation does not only involve the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and the Department of Indigenous Services. Multiple departments must address the issues at the same time. This is often done in silos, which means that interpretations differ from one department to the next. Since the interpretations are different, the work is not done in the same way. Obviously, their approaches should be harmonized, but that cannot happen at the end either. That also causes delays.

I mentioned the government's willingness, but it is a question of finding solutions to ensure that departments can work together. They are already working together to a certain extent, but interpreting the treaties themselves is a huge problem. I do not wish to speak on behalf of civil servants, but this means hours of extra work for them. We need to find solutions that enable dialogue and harmonization. As I said, that is exactly what needs to happen so that treaties can be implemented more quickly and efficiently. The trouble is this silo mentality.

As we can see, there is a willingness that may be symbolic, to a certain extent. As one of my colleagues mentioned earlier, there are issues or difficulties that are already on the table, but the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs is already aware of them. We will share some of the shortcomings in a report. However, there is still work to be done, whether it be to give the commissioner an enforcement role or to address the issue of harmonizing different departments' interpretations, amongst other things.

In closing, I humbly reiterate the Bloc Québécois' support for Bill C-10. I am the Bloc Québécois critic for indigenous and northern affairs. It is a special role, because it means acting as spokesperson for another nation within a government that is obviously a colonialist government. It is still a colonial government in the eyes of first nations and indigenous peoples. Being their spokesperson requires me to display humility and to be willing to set aside or suspend my biases in order to try to understand what they want. It requires me to speak on behalf of those communities, which, in this case, are asking for a commissioner who can defend their interests and expedite treaty implementation.

We support the establishment of this office. We do not support creating yet another agency with more expenses and more red tape, as some of my colleagues have incorrectly said. We just need to know what is happening. First nations and Inuit want to know. They are asking us to shed light on what is happening.

As I said earlier, if this can push the government to act more promptly and effectively, then we are certainly on board. That is what first nations and Inuit are asking for.

To conclude, I hope that all the parties will agree with the bill so that we can pass it. We have been discussing it for more than one Parliament. That shows just how long certain processes can take. There is still work to be done to establish the office itself, but I hope it will be set up in the coming years so that modern treaties can be implemented faster, with the simple goal of improving the well-being of first nations and Inuit communities.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome my colleagues back to Parliament.

The modern treaty implementation bill has clear support and key partners. Our government evidently wants the bill to be implemented efficiently. According to my colleague's speech, the Bloc Québécois shares that desire.

However, there seems to be more hesitation from the official opposition. I would like to ask my colleague whether her party, which is also part of the opposition, will continue to put pressure on the official opposition to ensure that no procedural delays or tactics are used to further delay the passage of this bill. I think it is time to pass it. There are clear expectations from the treaty partners. I would like to hear her thoughts on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been seven years since I have sat across from a majority government. I imagine it should be pretty easy for the government to pass legislation quickly. However, it is important to listen to the opposition parties.

Even though I do not necessarily agree with everything my colleague says, the fact remains that this bill could use some improvement. I would also like to remind members that, irrespective of the bill, the government must be willing to move forward on modern treaties. It is not only the commissioner who must push this forward. If the government were willing to do so, there would be no need to even vote on this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech. We have had the pleasure of sitting together for 11 years already. I am also very proud that the name of my riding includes an indigenous name: Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk.

I listened very carefully to the remarks of my colleague, who is always well informed and always in touch with the constituents she represents in the House. She mentioned that she agrees with the principle of first nations self-determination. I would like to hear her point of view on this in more detail. How far could this go? Would that mean a first nation could become a self-governing country?

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

Mr. Speaker, this has no bearing on the bill, but yes, there are modern treaties. As a Bloc Québécois member, I leave it to the Government of Quebec to reach its own decision in this regard. Personally, I believe that no country can be developed without the first nations, even a country like Quebec. My colleague is well aware that I am a sovereignist. The first nations have a tremendous role to play. I also believe that the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador wants that too. First nations need to be part of every discussion. As I see it, that is extremely important. We have an opportunity to rewrite history in way that is fair, equitable and mindful of culture and language.

My colleague knows that the Wendat nation is reviving its language. When a language comes back to life, it affects culture too. Obviously, I see this as a promising sign. I believe that sovereignty and the self-determination of peoples are important for both Quebeckers and first nations, but there are ways to work together, maybe even to create a country together.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I too have had the opportunity to work with her for 11 years, and it has been an honour.

I think there is a bit of consensus on this bill. However, unless I am mistaken, this is at least the second, if not third, version of such a bill. Since this is a government bill, I do not understand why it could not be developed, finalized or passed in previous Parliaments.

I am aware that it died on the Order Paper, but why did it die on the Order Paper? There was a Parliament from 2019 to 2021, and then another from 2021 to 2025. It seems to me that this bill could have been passed sooner, particularly if there is consensus. I wonder whether the government is actually serious or whether it just wants to tell indigenous people that it has introduced a bill. I want to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and congratulate him in turn on his 11 years of representing the citizens of Rivière-du-Nord so diligently and passionately.

Of course, I too am wondering why this bill keeps reappearing in a new form. The government is always the one that drafts it, and there is relative consensus, as I believe the bill will be passed. We have to wonder why it has not been passed more quickly. This always results in delays for first nations and Inuit. In this case, Bill C-10 is causing further delays, and the government is fully aware of that. I do not wish to speculate on the government's intentions, but I hope that this time will be different. It is up to the government to prioritize consideration of the bill, the debate and the vote. If it wants to, it could ensure that the bill does not die on the Order Paper at the end of the current parliamentary session.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member from the Bloc for her work on this file and at the indigenous and northern affairs committee. It has been a pleasure working with that individual on this piece of legislation.

As she would have heard in the committee process, this piece of legislation is not expected to stop the number of court cases being brought before the government right now. It is a mechanism, basically, to name and shame government departments that are not living up to their word. We agree on this side of the House that governments of all stripes over many years have not lived up to their word with indigenous peoples, but yet we do not see in this piece of legislation a mechanism that has some kind of accountability when these failures do happen. The Auditor General has outlined report after report about failures within the department, but nothing seems to change.

Would the member opposite like to see some kind of teeth in this legislation that could actually hold departments accountable?

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

Mr. Speaker, I may not always agree with my official opposition colleagues, but that is what I said in my speech. I said that the lack of teeth is what could ultimately give us an additional structure but that we do not know exactly what it might contribute, besides calling attention to the government's shortcomings.

We hope this will not be necessary and that the government will simply meet its modern treaty implementation obligations. However, we are going a step further, though it will do no good unless the government is on board. Naturally, as MPs, we can keep working in committee or in the House to ensure that these treaties are implemented effectively.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question along similar lines to the one my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord just asked. He asked why we are on the umpteenth version of this bill. I would like to know why this bill is the oldest one still before the House. This is Bill C‑10, but we have now progressed beyond Bill C‑30.

There does not seem to be any filibustering, and there is a general consensus about it. Does my colleague think that the government's failure to prioritize Bill C‑10 sends the wrong message? I am talking about the fact that it has taken so long to put it on our agenda. Twenty-four bills have been referred to the Senate since this Parliament began, while this bill is still before the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague from Saint-Jean asked me that question, as it allows me to add something I was not able to mention earlier.

As I see it, yes, this does raise some concerns because, on top of that, the government currently has a majority, so it could prioritize certain issues and pass legislation very quickly. Again, I do not want to speculate about its motives, but I have noticed that its interest in first nations seems like lip service. We are talking about this bill, but another bill, one dealing with water, was introduced in June just before the summer adjournment. We have been waiting for that bill for several Parliaments now. Once again, this same government has drafted and reintroduced the bill several times, but in the end, the bill never makes it to the floor for debate, never completes the legislative process and never gets sent to the Senate.

I think the government is showing that it has good intentions, but once again, it is not following through. The government needs to take action, but in my view, this might be just window dressing.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be back here with our colleagues of all sides. I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg Centre.

We are all treaty people. This is something we sometimes say in our communities. This is something we sometimes say in the House of Commons. This is something we say to each other in classrooms, hopefully in boardrooms, in places across Canada. The question is, what do we mean by that? How do we animate those words? Regardless of when a person or their family arrived on this land, all of us live within relationships that were shaped by treaties. We are all immigrants, except for the first peoples of this place. Treaties are living arrangements. They are a recognition that indigenous peoples were and remain self-governing nations with which Canada must maintain an ongoing relationship. Today, at this third reading, Bill C-10 asks us to strengthen those foundations.

Long before Confederation, indigenous nations entered into treaties and diplomatic relationships with European powers and later with the Crown. These agreements were often understood by everyone involved, including indigenous peoples, as commitments to share land, to coexist peacefully, and to maintain enduring nation-to-nation relationships. In fact, we use those words often in our own land acknowledgements. We refer to these treaties explicitly. We talk about what those treaties were committing to.

The treaty relationship was not meant to be temporary; it was meant to last. It was a commitment that was signed. These were oaths that were made, commitments made, and yet, as we know, the history that followed was marked more often by broken promises, unilateral decisions, exclusion from governance, and policies of displacement and assimilation.

Many treaty commitments were delayed, others ignored. Some were interpreted, incredibly narrowly, by governments. Indigenous peoples, later nations, and others spent generations advocating, organizing, litigating, cajoling and negotiating, simply to have those existing treaties which, yes, were decades or centuries old, to be honoured; agreements that were signed for generations to come.

The good news is that in this era, treaties continue to be signed. Yes, we are getting a bit better, hopefully, at recognizing those treaties or reacting to the litigation that results in the recognition of those treaties. In this era, in the modern era, modern treaties, sometimes called comprehensive land claim agreements, reflect contemporary realities while building on long-standing indigenous rights and relationships to the land, including rights that are recognized in the charter and in other pieces of legislation.

Since the 1970s, dozens of these agreements have been concluded across the country, particularly in northern Canada and British Columbia, addressing matters such as self-government, land management, resource sharing, environmental stewardship and economic development, but the challenge is, as it was, implementation. Indigenous treaty partners have repeatedly pointed out that signing an agreement is only the first step. An agreement on paper means little if governments fail to follow through consistently and transparently. That is where Bill C-10 comes in. Bill C-10 would establish an independent commissioner for modern treaty implementation and an accompanying office to support that work. The commissioner would review and audit how federal institutions are fulfilling Canada's obligations under modern treaties and would report publicly on findings.

I hear some mention on the other side about bureaucracy, about process, but this is actually about accountability. I think our forefathers and foremothers would have wanted some further accountability on the treaties that were signed. Is it not possible that those treaties that were signed decades and centuries ago would have been less honoured in the breach and more honoured in the practice if we had had a commissioner, if we had some institution that was a bit removed from government, that was answerable to Parliament, to call for accountability on the treaties that had been signed? Treaties that, yes, are decades or centuries old, but that represented real, enduring commitments that were being made by all parties, not just for themselves, not just for the people that they represent, but for the future generations that they were binding. That is what treaties are. They are binding commitments across generations as well as peoples.

I believe this piece of legislation, and my colleague, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, has done an excellent job outlining some of its benefits, including in this era, is going to be a very important piece of accountability, a very important piece of the framework that we need to continue on this reconciliation journey, to continue to honour not only the spirit, but also the meaning, of what it means to all be treaty people.

This legislation also gives me an opportunity to speak a bit about how this issue relates to our riding of Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park. Those who are more veterans of this place know that the name of the riding used to be Parkdale—High Park and through the federal electoral boundaries commission, the decision was made and adopted to add the name Taiaiako'n.

What is Taiaiako'n, and where is Taiaiako'n? It is a settlement near what is now Baby Point, in the northwest corner of our riding, in a beautiful corner of west Toronto, just along the Humber River, and it has been a place of commerce, fishing and recreational activity for millennia. It was part of something called the Carrying Place trail, an important trading route that linked Lake Ontario to the upper Great Lakes.

Taiaiako'n has been settled or inhabited in some way since at least 6000 BCE. There have been millennia of continuous human settlement in this beautiful part of west Toronto. It is a former Iroquois village, but many different inhabitants, the historical record suggests, have been there over the years. The record shows the presence of the Seneca, the Haudenosaunee under the Iroquois, the Wendat peoples, the Mississaugas, the Anishinabe and, much more recently, French Canadians. It is an important commercial space, place of exchange and place of dialogue.

As I have learned from conversations with community members, historians and indigenous knowledge keepers, the story of Taiaiako'n is neither simple nor singular. In the English reckoning, there are different spellings of the word Taiaiako'n. There are also different pronunciations. Some pronounce it Taiaiako'n. We in the riding have chosen to pronounce it as Taiaiako'n, but there are multiple ways to speak about this community, this beautiful part of west Toronto that is now part of the Baby Point neighbourhood. The archaeological record continues to show a really significant presence of indigenous peoples and a variety of indigenous settlements all the way along the trail and the river, including what we believe are some burial mounds in High Park.

All of this is the story of the indigenous presence in west Toronto. All of this is the story of Taiaiako'n. All of this is the story also of reconciliation. As I mentioned, there are multiple different ways of pronouncing our riding's name. There are different stories about who was there when. A lot of good research has been done, including by the City of Toronto and by the Taiaiako'n Historical Preservation Society.

Just to refer to the ongoing connections of these ideas and these practices in our riding, I want to point out to constituents and people across west Toronto the opportunity to gather in our riding on Wednesday, September 30, the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, when at the Dundas Roncesvalles Peace Garden, starting at 3:30 p.m., there will be the sixth annual Orange Shirt Day walk in commemoration of that very important day, and we will walk south from there. The event starts at 3:30 p.m. eastern time. The walk starts at around 4:15 p.m. eastern time.

Too often we look for a singular story, but indigenous knowledge systems frequently teach us to value multiple perspectives, multiple voices and multiple ways of understanding the same place. We continue to be enriched through events connected to the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, through events related to Indigenous History Month, including through the variety of activities that continue to happen in Toronto, particularly in Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, and work by groups like the Taiaiako'n Historical Preservation Society, organizations such as the High Park Nature Centre, and by people such as Abby Bushby, those of the Dundas Roncesvalles Peace Garden, and young spiritual elder Philip Cote, who has enriched my understanding of these issues significantly.

This bill would create the legal underpinning of the values we all espouse, a further legal underpinning to follow from the charter, the Constitution and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which has been adopted by the House and reflected in the calls to action and recommendations. These emerged from the commissions for which indigenous peoples, along with allies, fought for tirelessly to establish and were eventually recognized in the House through really significant and important reports on missing and murdered indigenous women and on the disaster of residential schools.

This bill creates part of the legal underpinning to live our values and respond to some of that advocacy, to those stories, to what we heard in those reports, and to build on what we committed to, whether it was in 1982, in 2006-07 or decades or centuries ago, or whether it is with new treaties that are going to follow. It strengthens the nation-to-nation relationships that are essential to Canada's future.

For that reason, I am pleased to support Bill C-10 at third reading. I encourage all members of the House to do the same.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives on this side of the House agree with the diagnosis that governments of all stripes have failed indigenous peoples for way too many years. Even in the member's speech, he listed a number of areas that the government is working on. For all of those areas the member outlined in his speech, the Auditor General has released report after report on the continuous failures within various government departments when it comes to indigenous peoples.

Given this legislation, which was commented on at committee as having no teeth to actually enforce ongoing failures, what mechanisms does the government have in place to ensure accountability?

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very good question. We create these structures to drive accountability. The existence of officers of Parliament is a very important structure to create accountability.

The existence of the Department of Indigenous Services has helped in responding to some of the issues that were identified, especially those around clean drinking water, something that I recall working on when I was working in the Premier of Ontario Kathleen Wynne's office, knowing that the response was not fast enough and that we needed some pressure, yes, from the inside but also from the outside to respond. It is that combination of institutions, along with the commitments we make in Parliament when we decide to endorse a piece of legislation like this, that is part of the solution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague. I want to amplify the fact that, by having this independent commissioner, we would really be providing more accountability and more transparency, at a time when Canadians have an expectation.

We see that in terms of the government's drive to build a stronger and healthier economy and in the importance of things such as the modern treaties. These are ways we can demonstrate clearly that, working collaboratively, we can make a difference and build a stronger Canada. When we look at Bill C-10, we see that it would be an important aspect of legislation in ensuring that there is more transparency and accountability through the establishment of a commissioner. Would the member not agree with that?

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely would agree.

As my friend so well knows, these are not commitments that are made and then forgotten. We continue to make new commitments, and we continue to attempt to honour the commitments already made, including those structures that my hon. friend has pointed out, as well as the commitments we make in this House and the commitments we make in debate by drawing attention to the treaties.

In my riding, it is the Williams Treaty and the Dish with One Spoon Treaty. There are some very specific treaties that are involved that, even centuries later, we have to be attentive to. There are new treaties, as my colleague points out, that result in real commitments and real benefits. To have a lens on that with an outside voice that is commenting on this to parliamentarians is really critical.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to let the member across the way know that the NDP absolutely supports appointing an independent treaty commissioner, but I am having trouble because the government, time and time again, has demonstrated that it actually does not respect treaties. There is the MOU signed with Alberta without treaty partners; treaties 6, 7 and 8; and Bill C-5, which in fact violated modern treaty rights holders including the Grand Council of the Crees, a bill that was supported by the member who is from that territory.

If we were to have an independent treaty commissioner, would the government actually listen to the commissioner and stop violating treaty rights?

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my colleague across the way, but regarding Bill C-5, we will have to agree to disagree. There is text right there in Bill C-5, which is now the law of the land, that is explicit about the recognition of indigenous rights and treaty rights in a variety of ways. It is a sign of our commitment on this side of the House that we put that into one of the very first pieces of legislation.

On heeding the work of the commissioner, that is something we would all have to attempt to do in the most committed way possible upon the establishment of this office.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is so nice to rise today as we begin another session.

I want to start by saying that the NDP absolutely supports Bill C-10. It is something that indigenous and modern treaty partners have long been asking for, an independent oversight and accountability mechanism over the federal government on modern treaty implementation.

This is also an obligation that is outlined in UNDRIP, which includes commitments to improve modern treaty implementation. This has been Canadian law, or affirmed in Canadian law, since the passing of Bill C-15 which received royal assent on June 21, 2021. However, as we know, it is one thing to change laws; it is another thing to change colonial behaviours.

With the Liberal government, I have not seen this kind of violation of, watering down of or pushing against indigenous rights since the Harper era. It is not surprising that our Prime Minister was taking photo ops with former prime minister Harper at his CEO summit that was held in Toronto just last week.

This bill would establish many important things. It would establish an independent commissioner for modern treaty implementation and support the office to review and audit federal institutions on the implementation of modern treaties and related agreements, with reports that would have to be tabled in Parliament. It requires draft findings to be shared and many other accountability measures. We know, and in fact on occasion the whole House has acknowledged, the importance in actually achieving reconciliation of respecting our treaties, which are affirmed by aboriginal rights and title that form part of our Constitution. The government has indicated that it is committed to achieving reconciliation with first nations, Inuit and Métis people.

Those are noble promises, but unfortunately, as we see a Liberal member and the Deputy Speaker of the House speaking during my time, interrupting my time, in action, this has been demonstrated to be completely unimportant to the current Liberal government.

We know that modern treaties are a part of our constitutional framework. We know that modern treaties were intended to establish a mutually agreed upon and enduring framework for reconciliation and ongoing relationships between the Government of Canada and indigenous peoples. Strong treaty relationships work when respected, when people work nation to nation. As the former prime minister Right Hon. Justin Trudeau has said, there is no more important relationship than that with indigenous peoples. When we respect treaty relationships, and when treaty partners actually respect each other, we can flourish, not only as independent nations but also as a country that we now call Canada.

This was affirmed and is part of the articles in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which states:

Indigenous peoples have the right to the recognition, observance and enforcement of treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements concluded with States or their successors and to have States honour and respect such treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements.

It also states in the United Nations declaration that its purposes are to provide a framework for the Government of Canada's implementation of the declaration to affirm that the declaration is a universal international human rights instrument with application in Canadian law, something that we affirmed through the passing of Bill C-15.

We know the minimum human rights standard, the bottom floor that formed part of the declaration. What is stated in the declaration are “the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of the indigenous peoples of the world”, and they must be implemented in Canada. As I indicated, actions speak louder than words, and unfortunately the Liberal government has demonstrated, not through its words but through its actions, that it is not dedicated to reconciliation. In fact, in the year and a half since the election of the so-called new Liberal government, our Prime Minister has made many gaffes in terms of respecting and upholding treaty rights in this country.

In November 2025, the federal-Alberta memorandum of understanding on energy development, which endorsed the construction of a new bitumen pipeline from Alberta to the B.C. coast, failed to include impacted indigenous nations, such as Treaty No. 6, Treaty No. 7, Treaty No. 8 and other nations, in decisions affecting their lands, territories and resources. The Confederacy of Treaty No. 6 First Nations stated, “We are disappointed the Confederacy...was not included at the decision making table prior to or during the signing of the MOU, despite the importance both governments have placed on First Nations inclusion.” This is an example that actions speak louder than words. It went on to say:

We require a seat at any table where decisions are made that impact our People. Treaty No. 6 Nations are the only Rights Holders on this Land—there would be no Alberta without Treaty. It is unacceptable that we need to request this. There can be nothing for us, without us.

Actions speak louder than words. It is a slap in the face by the Liberal government to treaty partners. It is a clear demonstration of its total disregard of treaties, which was also demonstrated in June 2026, when the government was forced by a class-action settlement to introduce clean water legislation. However, according to the Anishinabek Nation Grand Council Chief Linda Debassige, “Bill C-37 was introduced without broad or meaningful input by first nations. Our letters of advocacy have been met with deafening silence”. This is another slap in the face to treaty partners.

Chiefs at the Assembly of First Nations unanimously opposed the Prime Minister's plan for projects of national interest, with AFN National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak denouncing the government's plan, stating, “The federal government can try and set up all the timelines that they want for project approvals, but they can't put a deadline on First Nations rights.”

I want to be clear. The NDP absolutely supports putting in place an independent treaty commissioner to oversee the actions of the government, but as we have seen through the actions of the government, it does not respect treaties, does not respect the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, does not respect the rule of law and does not respect our Constitution and section 35 rights. When this commissioner is put in place, will the government finally listen, follow a path of true reconciliation and respect our treaties?

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

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I disagree with many of the thoughts the member just expressed on the record. I am glad and grateful that the NDP is going to be supporting the legislation. That is a very strong and positive thing. However, let me remind my friend that in Manitoba, there is OneNorth and the Arctic Gateway Group. Forty-one northern indigenous communities came together for that. On the port of Churchill expansion, what this government and Premier Wab Kinew have been emphasizing is that it is being driven by indigenous people and that it will not be possible without the indigenous leadership and indigenous people of northern Manitoba. Does the member support the government's action toward that?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is about free, prior and informed consent, and the government needs to stop announcing projects of national interest that involve indigenous people after the fact. In fact, Anishinabek Nation Grand Council Chief Linda Debassige called out the government for its “continued failure to respect our Nation's inherent rights and the treaties.” She said, “the lands and resources being targeted for development and investment are within the treaty territories of the Anishinabek First Nations around the Great Lakes region.” She went on to say, “First Nations will continue to demand justice, respect, and the fulfillment of the Crown’s constitutional and treaty obligations to the original relationship.”

That was her response to the latest and greatest debacle: the slap in the face to the treaty at the CEO summit in Toronto.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg Centre gave a passionate speech that had a lot of great points. We do not necessarily agree on everything, but I certainly appreciate everything she said today.

One of the issues I have with this bill is that we have seen a lack of accountability from the government. Report after report from the Auditor General has been ignored by the government. The government said earlier that it is not the minister who is responsible for implementing the modern treaty commitments, but this commissioner.

I wonder what my colleague thinks about the government taking accountability and responsibility away from the minister and pushing them onto the commissioner instead of taking responsibility itself.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the government has clearly demonstrated that the only partners it cares about are big corporations, which comes on the backs of people, the environment, indigenous rights and community health and safety. If we want to talk about accountability, the government has shown that it is not accountable. It has continued to violate the minimum standards outlined in the articles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples time and time again over the last year and a half.

I am calling the government's bluff. If it is going to put a commissioner in place, it better listen to that commissioner.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I too support Bill C-10, but it is galling to hear the words that the government respects the rights of indigenous people, when it is forcing the Tsleil-Waututh Nation to go to court to try to stop the dredging of Burrard Inlet after years of effort and the fake commitments from the government to use stewardship and science to protect that area of the traditional territory of the Tsleil-Waututh. One of the concerns of the Semiahmoo and Chief Harley Chappell is that it is going to destroy Roberts Bank with its new giant deepwater pipeline port.

What do words mean when the actions are so very different?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as somebody who has rights holder adhesion to Treaty No. 4, I can say that the only thing the government is committed to is saying the right words. Its actions speak differently. It is time for the Liberals to stop using our brown bodies as indigenous people and stop slapping us in the face when they turn their backs on their treaty obligations time and time again. Upholding treaties means protecting our environment, building the country and keeping projects out of the courts.