Debates of Sept. 21st, 2026

Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation Act

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to be back in the House with my colleagues and to have the opportunity to discuss the major global issues and serious challenges that our country is currently facing.

Today, we are here to discuss Bill C‑10. Bill C‑10 proposes to create a new officer of Parliament, a commissioner for modern treaty implementation. Their role would be to assess whether the terms of modern treaties are being met and to report their findings to Parliament. By conducting audits and reporting their findings to Parliament, the new commissioner would be able to highlight areas where the federal government can improve its performance in modern treaty implementation.

There is common ground when it comes to the core principle that treaty rights must be respected and that the process of reconciliation must move forward.

The Conservatives support treaty rights and the process of reconciliation with Canada's first nations, Inuit and Métis people. They also recognize that much work remains to be done to advance those rights, including self-determination and self-government.

What the Conservatives disagree with is the mechanism proposed in Bill C-10. The Conservative Party believes that, rather than creating more bureaucracy, the ministers and departments responsible for negotiating and implementing treaties should do their jobs. The Office of the Auditor General already conducts regular audits of modern treaty negotiations, self-government agreements, implementation and treaty land entitlement. The Conservatives firmly believe that the ministers and departments responsible for treaty negotiations and implementation should simply fulfill their responsibilities rather than creating a new position. The projected cost for the office of the commissioner for modern treaty implementation is $10.6 million over four years, with approximately 15 full-time employees.

The debate on Bill C-10 is about how to ensure the implementation of modern treaties and hold the federal government accountable. The importance of this accountability is clear: All commitments made under modern treaties must be honoured.

The Conservatives support treaty rights and the process of reconciliation with Canada's first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. The disagreement is not about the goal, but rather how to achieve it.

In conclusion, the Conservatives believe that the solution is not to create a new body or add a new bureaucratic structure. The Office of the Auditor General already conducts audits on modern treaties and their implementation, and several federal initiatives and offices already exist in this area. Rather, the responsibility lies with the ministers and departments already in charge of negotiating and implementing the treaties. They need to step up and do their job. That is why the Conservative position is to oppose Bill C-10.

I hope that was clear. My French is a bit rusty, so I will continue a bit in English.

That was not the conclusion of my speech; it was just the conclusion of the French part. I am sorry to get members' hopes up.

It is good to be back in the House, the people's House, during what is certainly a tumultuous time for our country and for the world. We are discussing Bill C-10, which deals with modern treaties but which also speaks to the kind of architecture we use as a country to hold the government accountable and to challenge or constrain government decision-making. I think this is an important conversation to be having now in the context of broader debates about the nature of our institutions and how we use them.

Of course, we are having this debate in the context of an escalating trade war between Canada and the United States. It was in the context of the further escalation of that trade war that Conservatives called for the early reconvening of Parliament so that we could come together and work through, debate and discuss the issues that were before the House and that are before the country. We would have brought what was clearly the business of the nation before the House. Unfortunately, the Liberals chose not to do that, but that underlined, I think, a difference in philosophy about the role of Parliament in response to these events.

In the context of threats to our country, there are obviously the fundamentals on which all of us agree. I guess we do have, respectfully, some separatists in the House, but most of us are here out of a devotion to the strength and unity of Canada. We are here because we love Canada. We disagree about the mechanisms, the processes and the policies that are in the national interest, but most of us are here because we deeply love this country.

As I think about the idea of love and of loving one's country, I am drawn to that famous line from The Brothers Karamazov. Dostoevsky reminds us that “love in [reality] is a harsh and dreadful thing compared with love in dreams.” There are many different things he means by that, but centrally I think he means that our love for our country requires sacrifice from us. It requires hard things. It also requires us to challenge decisions out of a desire to strengthen and to prod our country in a positive direction.

The engagement of parliamentary institutions, the use of parliamentary institutions, is the tool by which we are able to draw on the ideas and experiences not just of members of Parliament but, through them, of all of their constituents. We spend time in our ridings hearing from Canadians about their priorities, their concerns and how they would like to see us respond to the issues of the day. Then we come together here in the central chamber of Canadian democracy to propose constructive ideas, to challenge each other and to hold each other accountable, especially to hold the government accountable, for the decisions we make, all with the goal of positively prodding our country in a constructive direction.

Socrates used to describe himself as the gadfly of Athenian democracy. Canadian democracy needs its share of gadflies to—

[An hon. member]

Let's go for the hemlock.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, some members across the way say they would like me to meet an end similar to that which Socrates met, but I know that is meant in good humour. He saw himself as a gadfly at the hindquarters of Athenian democracy, which meant he was biting away, annoying the great beast that was Athenian democracy, in hopes of prodding it in a constructive direction.

Sometimes during times of national crisis the role of the opposition is challenged. People ask why it does not just agree with everything the government says, but it is out of love for this country and out of loyalty to this country that those who have been directed by the voters into this role of opposition challenge the government in a positive, constructive direction, at least as they see it. Of course, there are going to be different views about what that positive, constructive direction is, but we deeply revere in our tradition this idea of a loyal opposition.

This is why I think it would have been the right decision for Parliament to come back early, to identify the many areas that we agree on in terms of Canada's national interest and also to ask the government questions about its strategy, about its priorities and about the choices and trade-offs it is considering.

It is also why we have asked for more information about the nature of negotiations, about the things that were on the table and about the costs associated with countertariffs. When more parliamentarians have that information, when the public has that information, it allows for constructive deliberations about the choices and trade-offs that are involved. It is not because we do not share an ultimate objective. Of course, in many respects we do share an ultimate objective. However, this institution exists so that we can challenge each other based on our shared love for this country. In the face of these challenges, I would encourage the government to recognize the importance of Parliament, to share information with Parliament and to bring these issues to Parliament for a thorough discussion and debate, because this is how and where the best decisions get made.

I say this because I think there is some evidence to suggest that the Prime Minister would prefer a kind of corporate governance model to a parliamentary democratic model for shaping the direction of the country. He would prefer to tell parliamentarians in his own caucus, as well as in other parties, to just trust him about the decisions he is making because, as chairman of the board, he is going to make those decisions and why not let him do it.

Our parliamentary democracy exists for a reason. It exists because the prodding, directing, encouraging, challenging and accountability are part of the process of getting to good decisions. Parliamentarians are not just individuals putting our own ideas forward. We are reflections of the values, objectives and ideas of our constituents. That is why Parliament matters. That is why it is important. That is why we should resist efforts by the Prime Minister to shift us from a parliamentary democracy model to a model of corporate governance.

I would remind the House that parliamentary democracy is also essential during times of crisis. We have a record of many of Winston Churchill's great interventions in the House of Commons. He felt the importance of coming to the House, even during Britain's darkest hour. In the face of these challenges, again, this institution is important.

Members across the way are eager to hear about how these points relate to Bill C-10. Bill C-10 is actually another example of the government trying to alter the structure and directions of our institutions in ways that move us away from the focus on parliamentary and ministerial accountability. It wants to see this proliferation of external new bodies that do not really have any powers. They would have the power to criticize or commend the actions of the government in relation to modern treaties, but this obscures the fact that the responsibility for implementing these treaties, for acting in accordance with the treaties, is the responsibility of the government and of the ministers charged with implementing them.

The House of Commons, as well as its committees, is the place where members of Parliament can and should challenge the government on its actions with respect to our adherence to those treaty obligations. Therefore, the best thing for accountability and for ensuring that action is taken in accordance with these treaties is not the proliferation of external bureaucracy with, frankly, limited tools and a limited capacity to hold the ministers accountable, but for the government to actually take Parliament more seriously, for ministers to provide substantive responses to substantive questions, for ministers to make themselves more available at committee, and for the Prime Minister to address the Canadian House of Commons as soon as possible after a breakdown in negotiations with the United States, not to address the European Parliament before addressing the Canadian Parliament.

I think it is great for the Prime Minister to be engaging internationally, but the fact that he addressed these issues at a foreign parliament before addressing them at the Canadian Parliament demonstrates why it would have been so much better if the Canadian Parliament had been convened—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the member. I have a point of order from the member for Winnipeg South Centre.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. The colleague across the way and I had the wonderful privilege of being classmates together at Carleton University a number of years ago and debated quite often.

If I am not mistaken, I do believe the debate before us is on Bill C-10, and although I am enjoying some of the observations the member is making, I have not heard the word “treaty”, the word “commissioner” or the bill referenced in the last 10 minutes. I wonder if maybe there is a point to be made on that front.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I understand it is the first day back from the summer break and the member is making a point of order about the germaneness of the debate.

The member has been referring to governance models going back and forth and giving examples. It is germane to the debate. I will let the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan continue.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the member is a new member in the House. He is not as new as he once was. I do welcome him back.

On a serious point to that member, I heard from some of his constituents about a private member's bill that I put forward in the House. It is Bill C-290, on the theft of religious items, because I know there have been some thefts of mezuzahs. There has been real concern in the Winnipeg Jewish community about that, so I have been meaning to call him about it. I would recommend he have a look at Bill C-290. I hope that the bill, which seeks to address the issue of theft of religious items, is something that could be an area of cross-party co-operation. That definitely is not related to Bill C-10.

What I am underlining in this speech is simply that, in the midst of challenging times for our country, in a context where it is important for us to come together and agree on the fundamentals of defending the Canadian national interest, the robust debate that happens in Parliament, the requests for information and the process of holding government ministers accountable are important processes of helping us collectively make better decisions. To love this country is also about loving and working through its existing institutions and recognizing the value of the heritage we have in the establishment of these institutions.

As it relates to Bill C-10, it is about saying that the core of accountability is not external to Parliament; it is right here in Parliament. It is the obligation of ministers to uphold our obligations under modern treaties and other treaties. It is to come before the House to defend their actions, to respond to questions from opposition members about them, to do so here within the House and to do so before its committees. We need to have a strong Parliament, a strong Parliament for a strong Canada and a united Canada in the face of various challenges.

I was thinking about these challenges just today, looking at the news and comments from the American administration about buying potash from Belarus. This was really striking to me because Belarus is systematically involved in the theft of children from Ukraine. It has been well established by human rights groups that Russia and Belarus are involved in stealing children from Ukraine. This is actually an issue that the first lady of the United States has been quite active in and vocal on, trying to get children who have been stolen from Ukrainian families returned to their families.

How in the world did we get to this point where the American administration is talking about buying potash from Belarus instead of trying to restore the relationship with Canada? This is a baffling point to be at. It underlines the need for us to bring the case directly to the American people, to say that we need to have partnerships among like-minded democracies. This ridiculous economic attack on our country makes no sense from a strategic perspective for the United States. Why would we want to buy potash from a regime that is intentionally and systematically stealing children?

These are the challenges we face. These are the kinds of challenges that need to be addressed in our Parliament through debate, through discussion, through collaboration and also through disagreements, but to defend the interests of Canada.

[Louis Villeneuve, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging the quality of my colleague's French. He has nothing to worry about. His French was very good. I would also like to reassure him that our Prime Minister listens to his caucus. I think that is very important.

I am going to stick to Bill C-10.

The government wants to move things forward. I know my colleague is doing his job, but it is important to note that some Conservative members have, in the past, delayed the passage of legislation affecting indigenous peoples. What assurances can the Conservatives give us that this time their party will work to pass the bill quickly and without unnecessary delay to help modern treaty partners in their ridings?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.

I think this makes it clear that we generally all share the same goal when it comes to advancing indigenous rights. However, we disagree on this bill. Conservatives do not believe that this is the ideal mechanism for advancing and defending the rights of indigenous peoples.

Instead, we should be focusing on existing mechanisms, namely accountability within the parliamentary context.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague as well. I see that it is much easier for our interpreters to interpret from French to English, because my colleague speaks English very quickly. I also want to wish everyone, including my colleague, a good start to the session.

My question is this: Considering that no such commissioner position existed and that all of our commissioners tell us at our meetings that they lack sufficient enforcement powers and can do nothing but make recommendations, why not take this opportunity to create a commissioner position ourselves, and lead by example by introducing more coercive measures?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that the commissioner would not have the power to ensure that the government's actions are consistent with its obligations. Other mechanisms already exist, such as the courts, for example, where indigenous peoples can demand that the government comply with the agreements.

In my view, this is a fundamental problem with Bill C-10. How can the government justify a commissioner position? He will not have the powers needed to guarantee results.

What, then, is the purpose of creating this post?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in my colleague's excellent speech, he covered a lot of important information regarding Parliament and the way we act. One of the foundations of our parliamentary system, of course, is ministerial responsibility, whereby a minister is accountable to Parliament for the administration of their department and the decisions it makes.

We heard the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations this morning in her opening speech on this bill state that the implementation of modern treaty commitments would not be done through her department; rather, it would be passed on to the commissioner instead. I wonder if my colleague would like to opine on the decision of the Liberal government to say that ministers would not be responsible anymore and unelected commissioners would be.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is another excellent point from my colleague. This is precisely the issue. Through this bill, which sounds nice on the face of it, “Oh, we are creating this new commissioner,” the structure of the new position is to try to reduce the accountability, the pressure and the demands on the shoulders of the minister, while not really giving the commissioner the power to address the issues that are brought before him or her.

It is kind of a diffusion and a weakening of the accountability structures that are supposed to exist within our system. Sometimes with this kind of legislation, when there is a nice-sounding top line, we have to look underneath it and ask, “What is this bill actually doing? What are the effects of it going to be?”

As my colleague illustrates, this reflects a kind of preferred corporate governance-oriented model that the Prime Minister wants to apply to this country that in fact weakens the structures of our parliamentary democracy as they are supposed to exist.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member gave the government credit for actually bringing forward this legislation, well, not really credit, but he attributed it to them. I would not go that far.

This legislation is a result of pressure from modern-day treaty nations that have called for this, because of the government's failure to implement treaties and dragging its feet. That is what this is about, and it includes the Maa-nulth first nations in my riding. I also think about nations in my riding that have signed agreements with the government that are not modern-day treaties, like Tla-o-qui-aht. The government is dragging its feet on promises it has made.

We hear the government constantly talking about nation-building. Does my colleague agree that nation-building is signing modern-day treaties, signing agreements with indigenous peoples, and that fast-tracking that should be a priority for the government? That is good for the economy. That is good for nation-building.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, objectively, Conservatives have a much stronger record when it comes to signing modern treaties in government than the Liberal government does. The numbers are very clear on that.

The failure of the government on many fronts has led to pressure for other accountability mechanisms and has led to the government trying to diffuse accountability mechanisms. Again, our view is that the response to these failures of the government should be holding ministers accountable for their decisions and for their failure to make decisions in certain cases, and that the government has a responsibility to expose itself to debate in Parliament and to questions at committee, so that we can work through these crucial issues of the national interest, of nation-building and reconciliation, so that we can do that as the leaders who are responsible here in Parliament for making the decisions that shape the future of our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if we could go right to the point of Bill C-10 and what the member seems to be focused on, in terms of parliamentary accountability. Bill C-10 sets into place an independent agent of Parliament on a critically important issue, in terms of modern-day treaty agreements.

At the end of the day, I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts in regard to how it takes away from accountability when there is an independent agent of Parliament providing reports on what the government is or is not doing? How does that take away from accountability?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot there. Oftentimes what we see with the government is efforts to defer things that it is responsible for to external bodies when the authority and the ability to act is in the hands of ministers.

Again, I would say the issue here is whether the government has fulfilled its obligations. There is a lot of consensus that the government has failed in this regard. Rather than fix the fundamental problems, the government is offering to create another commissioner, who is not actually going to have the power to solve these problems but who is going to do studies. It is this constant sort of Liberal industry of wanting to fund external activism or external review rather than actually fixing the core problems that the government has the power and responsibility to fix. That is the issue.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I request that it be carried on division.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 6:30 p.m. so we can get into the adjournment debate.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Government Accountability

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the jobs numbers that have just come out reveal 42,000 jobs lost in August. Of course, in the context of the escalating trade conflict, we are expecting to see challenges as a result of tariffs and countertariffs, but the important thing we need to understand about these latest job numbers is that they come from the reference week of August 9 to 15. The job numbers are based on a reference week. That reference week was prior to the breakdown in negotiations, a time when positive public signals were being sent by both the Canadian and American sides. These 42,000 jobs lost in August are from before the escalation we have seen.

It underlines that we are seeing job losses in this country, and we are seeing an increase in youth unemployment as a result of domestic policy decisions and a failure of action on the part of government to respond to these challenges. Again, it is simply clear from the timing of these job losses. The increase in the youth unemployment rate to 12.9% was before the latest escalations.

Conservatives have taken a very constructive approach on the jobs issue. We presented the government with our Conservative jobs plan last fall, with specific concrete proposals that would address the unemployment crisis, especially that which is acutely facing Canadian young people. Our priorities and proposals were in the areas of unleashing the economy, fixing immigration, fixing training and building homes where the jobs are.

With regard to unleashing the economy, there is a lot of discussion about major projects today, and I think major projects are extremely important. This is why Conservatives have long called for, for instance, the repeal of Bill C-48 and Bill C-69. We do not need a piecemeal approach that allows the government to pick a few favoured projects, but a general approach that fixes the systematic problems in the impact assessment process.

Moreover, it is not just about the big projects. It is also about the ability of small businesses to exist in an environment with low taxes, low red tape and much shorter permitting timelines, where someone with a big idea can make a go of it without being gummed up by the pressures associated with high taxes and high red tape. We propose specific, concrete proposals around unleashing the economy, such as, for instance, not paying capital gains tax on dollars immediately reinvested in this country.

We need to be unleashing the economy, fixing immigration, addressing the misalignment between our immigration system and the needs of our economy, training Canadian young people for the jobs that exist here in Canada, offering relatively more generous grants to students pursuing opportunities in areas where there is labour demand and aligning training with the needs of the labour market. Liberals have gone in the opposite direction by cutting off many colleges' and non-university vocational institutions' students from being able to get those dollars. We also need to be building homes where the jobs are, making it easier for people to relocate to areas where the jobs are.

This is the constructive content Conservatives have been putting into the discussion, which Liberals have failed to implement, and that is why we continue to see challenges. When will they take our constructive ideas to help young people get back to work?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is really interesting to compare reality to what the Conservatives are trying to give the false impression of. Let me give a tangible example about jobs. Our Prime Minister, who was elected just under 18 months ago, has had a net gain of tens of thousands of jobs. That is the reality. The member is picking and choosing, but it is important that we put this in the context of what is taking place around the world.

I can assure the member across the way that our Prime Minister and every member of the government caucus is focused on building a stronger, healthier Canadian economy. Working closely with our constituents, we are bringing ideas and thoughts to the floor of the House of Commons, which is also assisting in the important policy decisions not only being made today, but that have been talked about since the last federal election.

On the word “collaboration”, we have been working with different levels of government, indigenous people, many different stakeholders, and individuals of all political stripes. Building a stronger and healthier economy has been priority number one for every Liberal member of the House of Commons. We continue to push for collaboration. We have a strong desire for that, and we are starting to see very tangible results.

We have a Prime Minister who noted at an economic summit, the first of its kind, close to half a trillion dollars in potential commitments coming to Canada. We have seen billions of dollars being committed to major projects. We have seen the provinces, along with indigenous communities, working hand in hand developing major projects that are going to realize thousands of good-quality jobs. We have seen budgets presented by this government with things such as the Red Seal program enhancement, which is going to help young people and ensure they are getting good-quality jobs.

We have a Prime Minister and a suite of ministers who have been travelling around the world bringing in and attracting businesses and opportunities for additional exports abroad, creating thousands of jobs. Even in the context of what is taking place between Canada and the United States, the government and the Prime Minister have been focused on issues such as affordability, something we are genuinely concerned about. There is a great deal we can be working on and that we continue to work on.

I look across the way to members of the Conservative Party of Canada and ask them to start looking at ways in which they too can assist in positive policy development that will be healthy for our economy. I can assure the member that the constituents I represent and the Prime Minister of Canada want collaboration. We want to see people working together in order to deliver on important issues, whether it is the suite of crime legislation we brought in just a number of months ago, which is the most progressive and aggressive crime legislation we have seen, or economic measures. We care about what is taking place in our communities, so whether it is about affordability or trade, we are on top of it, and we will continue to work with Canadians and stakeholders.