Debates of Sept. 21st, 2026

Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation Act

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is a great question. In fact, I think we should start with all the Auditor General's recommendations, put them back on the floor, ask for accountability and measures, and show the Canadian public how the government is failing.

The problem with the bill is that it is just an announcement. It has no substance, so let us start back 20 years when the complaint—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-10. I really believe that the Conservatives have missed the mark on this. I am pleased to see and hear that the Bloc is going to be supporting the legislation. I had a tough time listening to the member for Winnipeg Centre, and I will provide some comments on that as to why. However, having said that, I appreciate and am somewhat grateful that the NDP has also indicated support for Bill C-10. I believe the leader of the Green Party has also indicated support for Bill C-10.

The only political entity inside the House today that does not recognize the value of passing Bill C-10 is actually the Conservative Party of Canada. I often make reference to that far right element, which continues to grow. In fact, a number of them have been promoted to come a little closer to the front. At the end of the day, I am disappointed in the Conservative Party for not recognizing the true value of Bill C-10. We have had a Prime Minister, in one way, who has emphasized how important it is that we build a stronger and healthier Canada. We have talked about that now since the last federal election just over a year ago, when Canadians elected a new government.

In order for Canada to succeed to the degree the Prime Minister of Canada or any member of the House wants to see it succeed and prosper into the future, indigenous leadership and indigenous people have to be at the forefront. When I take a look at Bill C-10 and what it actually does, I do not understand why the Conservatives have chosen to vote against the legislation. I am going to suggest to them that they might want to reconsider their positioning on the legislation, because at the core, the heart of the legislation is to ensure more accountability, more transparency. This is in essence what the bill would do, yet the Conservative Party has determined that it does not want to support this legislation because of a belief that it would not be necessary if the government just did more on the file.

I have been around since 2010 as a federal member of Parliament, and I spent just under 20 years as an MLA in Manitoba. I can tell the House that when we take a look at independent agencies of Parliament, whether at the national level or the provincial level, they play a critical role in the issue of accountability and transparency on a wide variety of different issues. If we want to get a good sense of it, let us take a look at the Auditor General. It does not mean we have to agree with every detail that comes back out of a report, but it is important to recognize the report and that the report raises the profile of critically important issues that have been determined by a thorough investigation.

This is what we are actually looking at with the creation of a commissioner to deal with modern treaties. Why would they not support that? At the different levels of government, we see mechanisms that are put into place to ensure that this does take place, that there is a higher sense of accountability, that there is a thorough look into a number of different issues that are important to the nation and our best collective interest.

This is why, first and foremost, setting up a commissioner through the legislation and an office that is there to support the commissioner, in the legislation necessary to give the commissioner the authority and power to call into question the modern treaties and some things that are or are not taking place, and raising them in the form of a report to the appropriate federal minister, ultimately does a great service. This is especially so if we want to follow through on what the government has been talking about for the past 18 months or so, since the last federal election.

I would ask the Conservative Party to reconsider their position and to work collaboratively with the government on this particular issue. I believe that not only would the communities we represent support it but also that a good part of our indigenous leadership would like to see this put into law.

In fact, if we listen to the minister and her explanation in introducing the legislation, or in bringing it up again for third reading, we will find that there was a great deal of consultation done with modern treaty partners, other indigenous leaders, provinces and other stakeholders, in order to ensure that we got it right. That is the way it was introduced, and the minister has been very open on the file. I would like to think that if members put it in the same category as other independent agents of Parliament, they would see the true benefits of allowing this bill to pass.

Now, it is not an issue of whether the bill will pass. The bill will pass. One of the Conservative members says, “We will see.” The bill will pass, as we are working in collaboration with other opposition leaders and parties. Only the Conservatives do not support it. The only thing the Conservatives can do is put up obstacles in order to prevent its passage in a timely fashion. That is the reason I am spending the first part of my comments appealing to the Conservatives. I believe the Conservatives understand that there is a lot of political support for the passage of the legislation. It has already been before the House. People have had the opportunity for months to take a look at the legislation and to provide both direct and indirect feedback to the minister. It is time that we actually see this legislation pass.

Today, two other major pieces of legislation were introduced. These bills are going to have a profound positive impact on our nation. Given the limited amount of time that we have to debate on the floor of the House of Commons, I would suggest that passing this legislation earlier as opposed to later would provide more time for us to talk about legislation that is on the horizon, including legislation tabled today.

This is not to disregard the opposition's comments. Where the opposition seems to be unified is in an area which, again, I do not necessarily agree with. I will go to the comments from the member for Winnipeg Centre right away, on the issue of the government doing more. In short, we can always do more. We can always try to do better. There is no doubt about that.

As a government, in terms of priorities, I believe we are making progress. We are taking steps forward, and Bill C-10 is one of those steps. I will give members a sense of why it is an important piece of legislation.

The member for Winnipeg Centre was talking about how the federal government and the Prime Minister are doing things by expanding the economy, bringing in huge amounts of investment, and how that is a bad thing because of the lack of involvement from indigenous peoples. Ultimately, I would argue that, to a certain degree, is maybe a little bit misleading. The government has worked in the past and continues to work on that critical relationship between levels of government, which includes indigenous peoples.

When we talk about those major projects, I will talk about the province of Manitoba. In Manitoba, the big project we continue to talk about, promote and encourage is the port of Churchill, which is connected by the Hudson Bay Railway. That is a major project for Manitoba. The Prime Minister has acknowledged that, our budget reflects that and the commitment reflects that. The premier of Manitoba has recognized it, supports it, wants to see it move forward, and has actually committed significant tax breaks for companies to invest. Indigenous people are the ones who are leading the file.

OneNorth, for example, is made up of 41 northern indigenous communities that came together, and they operate together in terms of the best interests of indigenous people, the north, and of course, of our nation. They are the owner of Arctic Gateway Group, which is responsible for the port of Churchill and the Hudson Bay Railway. Relatively recently, we finally had another ship leave the port of Churchill full of grain. There are many in the prairies who see the true value and want to see the port of Churchill realized. I believe it is wrong to try to give a false impression that, as a government, we are trying to do things without working with indigenous people.

The minister herself made some comments referencing that the modern treaties' partners are critical to advancing many of the projects we are seeing right now. She said, “such as the Nisg̱a'a nation with Ksi Lisims and the Tłı̨chǫ first nation with the Arctic economic and security corridor.” In Iqaluit, we have the NTI, which is leading a hydroelectric project. We are seeing modern treaty partners across the country, not only in equity, but also leading the charge in these major projects. This is what the minister indicated earlier.

These modern treaties make a huge difference in managing and moving forward on our environment, our economy and overall growth in Canada. Whether it is the Prime Minister, the government in general or, as I would like to think, all members of the chamber, we should be encouraging and recognizing indigenous involvement, because it is real and tangible and is making a difference in the lives of all Canadians. That is the reason I say, when the member for Winnipeg Centre and others indirectly allude to it, that at the end of the day, there are all sorts of opportunities for all of us. The modern treaties and what this legislation would do to reinforce the strength of the modern treaties are things we should all be recognizing.

That is why when the minister spoke, I asked her a question in regard to the impact that modern treaties have on Bill C-10 and the types of actions the government has been taking over the last year plus, since the last election. She concurred with my remarks, and she is not alone. Many of the people I represent, virtually the entirety of the Liberal caucus and many members opposite see the benefit of having a commissioner, an independent agent of Parliament, hold more accountability and transparency on the issue of modern treaties, and see how modern treaties can contribute to the agenda that is not owned by any individual but should be the Canadian agenda, with a team Canada approach. That is to build a stronger, healthier Canada in every region of this nation. That was the point I was making with the minister earlier when she brought in the bill, because it is substantive.

In terms of the commissioner, these are some of the things that the commissioner would be able to do: review and audit the federal implementation of modern treaties. When we think of modern treaties, the first one was the James Bay modern treaty, back in 1975. It dealt with things such as land ownership, financial compensation and the issue of self-governance. Modern treaties today enable a higher sense of collaboration among the different levels of government. The more we take that team approach and work collaboratively, the bigger we are going to be able to grow as a nation as a whole.

Bill C-10 is legislation that fits into a much larger picture. Any time we can reflect positively on the floor of the House of Commons in regard to modern treaties, we should take advantage of it and do just that. We should support modern-day treaties because they do make a difference. Governments change; they come and go. Maybe that will happen in 10 or 15 years. However long it might be, at the end of the day, they do change, and having an independent agent of Parliament is good for all of Canada.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Madam Speaker, there are already accountability measures and mechanisms within this House. The Auditor General, for example, puts out multiple reports. In 2021, there was a report on the shortcomings and missed promises when it came to water legislation. Only years later, on something so fundamental to human life, as everybody needs water, are the Liberals acting on legislation they promised a long time ago. They are still fighting in courts on this issue too.

What would be different with a new commissioner's office in comparison to how the Liberals have failed to live up to reports the Auditor General cites against the government?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-10 recognizes the value that modern treaties play in Canadian society. It would enable a better, stronger relationship between the federal government and indigenous people. Having a commissioner that reports back to the House on where the government needs to improve would be a positive thing. I am not alone, as many indigenous leaders have actually been advocating for that. I could be wrong on this, but I understand that even with modern treaties that were brought into place, the topic of having a commissioner was discussed.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to see you again, and the member for Winnipeg North as well.

Bill C‑10 is important to me. In my capacity as critic for indigenous relations, I met with people from the Land Claims Agreements Coalition. I remember meeting Jim Aldridge, who has unfortunately passed away, and seeing how much he contributed for the groups. In committee, I interviewed Chief John Jack, who also appreciates this heritage. It is important to remember that this bill was co-developed, which means that we, as parliamentarians, must also be sensitive to the outcomes of this bill.

Why are we here? We are here because the government has failed, year after year, decade after decade, to uphold its commitments to indigenous signatories to modern treaties and ensure the implementation of those modern treaties. Of course, program funding is an important issue. The Auditor General has produced many reports and follow-up reports on the government's inaction.

What will creating a commissioner position achieve? It will allow us, as parliamentarians, to take note of any red flags, so we know what to ask questions about. Personally, I see that as a good thing. Does the member for Winnipeg North see it as a sign of the government's failure to keep its word to indigenous signatories to modern treaties?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am grateful and appreciate that the Bloc has recognized the value of Bill C-10 and is working with the government to see its ultimate passage. It is really encouraging that less than 18 months ago, Canadians elected a new government, a new Prime Minister and 70-plus new Liberal MPs.

At the end of the day, this has been established as a high priority for the Prime Minister. That is the reason we are debating the bill today at third reading. That is the reason I spent as much time as I did at the very beginning of my comments asking for the Conservatives to reconsider their positioning and at the very least let us pass the legislation. I can assure members that the Prime Minister wants to see it passed. That is why we prioritized it. Hopefully it will pass relatively soon.

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

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciated my colleague's speech. He made a very important point that I am going to ask him to elaborate on now, which is that this bill has the prospect of not only improving our treaty relationships and improving the likelihood of really good adherence to treaties, but also creating more economic certainty. If we have adherence to treaties that have an economic dimension, that means an accountability function through Parliament allows more potential certainty with respect to the underlying economic relations of the treaty. I am wondering if my colleague could elaborate on that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question because it allows me to amplify that modern-day treaties can have such a huge, positive impact, not only from a social perspective, but also from an economic perspective.

When we take a look at Bill C-10 and put it into the larger picture of what we have been trying to accomplish over the 18 months since the last election in building a stronger and healthier Canadian economy, Bill C-10 plays an important role. This is because it would ensure not only that we would be meeting an obligation to the different stakeholders, but that this government and future governments would be held to account and have more transparency and would live up to modern-day treaties. In my opinion, it is a win-win situation. We just need the legislation to pass.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, I hardly agree with the parliamentary secretary about this being good from an economic perspective, but I guess it is good from the economic perspective of bureaucrats and bloated government. I wonder if he is aware of the six separate entities specifically designed to monitor, support and ensure treaty implementation. He can nod if he knows these ones: the modern treaty implementation office, the assessment of modern treaty implications office, the performance management framework, the modern treaty management environment, the deputy ministers' oversight committee and the reconciliation secretariat.

I am wondering if the member could elaborate on these other aspects that are about doing the same job.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, let us follow the same logic and principle and apply it to the Auditor General of Canada. Much of the work done by the Auditor General of Canada is done in different ways by different departments. Would the member be advocating that we get rid of the Auditor General of Canada because it is a huge bureaucracy? I suspect not, or at least I would hope not.

At the end of the day, the difference is that this would be an independent agent of Parliament. That is the significant difference. I would ask the member opposite whether he believes that independent agents of Parliament provide a worthwhile service to the House of Commons and to Parliament. I would argue they do.

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

Madam Speaker, there are two quick points I wish to make to the hon. member for Winnipeg North. This bill was originally tabled as Bill C-77. It was introduced long ago in the previous Parliament and died on the Order Paper when the previous prime minister, Justin Trudeau, prorogued.

I wrote the Prime Minister on March 9, after he became Prime Minister in 2025, and said that a lot of bills died on the Order Paper and that we should get them back. The government waited a long time to introduce this one.

My colleague from Winnipeg Centre is not here, but when she speaks of ignoring treaty rights and when government members keep telling us that Ksi Lisims is an indigenous project, please know, as the member for Winnipeg North must know, that it is a project being promoted by a Texas-owned company. It is the primary proponent and will make the money out of the project. We respect that there is an agreement with the Nisga'a nation, but it is a Texas project called Ksi Lisims.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am going to allude to an answer I provided a little earlier regarding Bill C-10, because the leader of the Green Party is right that it was a part of the agenda in a previous government. In minority situations, it can be even more of a challenge trying to get legislation through the House, as she would know. Given that there is a majority government, I can tell the leader of the Green Party that we have a Prime Minister who still wants to see collaboration in the House. That is why in my opening comments I talked about it being encouraging to see, whether it is the leader of the Green Party, the New Democrats or the Bloc, a recognition of the value of this particular piece of legislation. It is the Prime Minister's will to see it pass.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Government Accountability; the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona, The Environment; the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre, Labour.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Edmonton Northwest.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will share my time with my colleague from Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.

I rise today to speak on Bill C-10 and the important question of how Canada honours its modern treaties and self-government agreements with indigenous peoples.

Let me begin by making something very clear. Conservatives support modern treaties and self-government agreements. We believe these agreements can provide certainty, establish clear legal relationships, recognize indigenous jurisdiction and create stronger foundations for economic development and self-determination.

For generations, the relationship between first nations and the federal government has been shaped by the Indian Act. It has created dependency, bureaucracy and a system in which too many decisions affecting indigenous communities remain concentrated in Ottawa.

Modern treaties and self-government agreements offer a different path. They can establish defined rights and responsibilities between indigenous governments and the Crown. They can provide greater certainty for communities, governments, investors and Canadians. They can support indigenous nations in exercising greater control over their own affairs. From our perspective, that is the direction we should be working toward: less dependency on federal bureaucracy, greater Indigenous self-government and legally defined relationships that deliver results. The question before us is whether Bill C-10, as designed, would meaningfully advance those objectives, or would it create another federal office, another reporting structure and another process that does not adequately address the root causes of the problems?

In my opinion, this legislation does nothing more than create more ineffective processes posed as solutions in Ottawa, away from the communities that have been waiting for the government to fulfill the spirit and intent of treaty-making.

The government has told us that the legislation is intended to create a credible, effective, sustainable and independent oversight mechanism. This is an important objective, but Parliament has a responsibility to ask whether the proposed powers will be sufficient to achieve it.

The bill would give the commissioner the discretion to conduct reviews and performance audits, establish priorities and prepare reports. The commissioner would have to submit final reports to the Speakers of both Houses, and those reports would be referred to a parliamentary committee.

As a first-time MP, I have now witnessed multiple Auditor General reports on the shortcomings of indigenous relations with government. The government response is the same: minuscule and meaningless. That raises a serious question. Will this office have the power to drive results, or will it primarily document failures and report them to Parliament? Reporting is important, and transparency matters, but reporting alone does not guarantee that a treaty obligation will be fulfilled. The historic treaties that are over 150 years old can attest to this.

We have seen this challenge in other areas of indigenous services. Consider the Auditor General's work on access to safe drinking water in first nations communities. In 2021, the Auditor General reported that Indigenous Services Canada was not on track to eliminate all long-term drinking water advisories by March 2021, which is another failed Liberal promise. The audit identified concerns involving support to communities; funding for infrastructure, operations and maintenance; and the non-existence of an appropriate regulatory framework. Only five years later, after striking out on Bill C-61 because they called an election, are the Liberals addressing these concerns with legislation that is “watered down,” according to chiefs. These are clearly not the actions of a government that takes accountability reports seriously.

In 2025, the Auditor General's follow-up examined the implementation of recommendations from six earlier audits covering programs including primary health care, emergency management and safe drinking water. The follow-up found that Indigenous Services Canada made poor progress on many recommendations, even getting worse on some measurements. These reports demonstrate why Parliament must distinguish between accountability processes and the achievement of outcomes. The lesson is not that audits have no value but that audits must lead to action. When a government department receives recommendations, Canadian and indigenous communities deserve to know what will change, who is responsible and when the work will be completed.

The same principle should apply to modern treaty implementation. If the commissioner identifies a recurring failure, what happens next? Will the responsible department be required to produce a corrective action plan? Will the minister be expected to explain delays? Will Parliament be able to follow up on unresolved findings? These are not abstract questions. They go directly to the credibility of the proposed institution.

This raises more questions on how this legislation lacks real teeth. How would this legislation and the commissioner's office deal with the diversity and complexity of modern treaties? I seriously fear that the legislation would set up a parliamentary institution to fail because it lacks the foresight and legitimacy to deal with the root issues.

The government has indicated that the co-development process involved all 30 indigenous modern treaty partners. That is good, but that demonstrates the breadth of the relationships that the proposed office would need to understand. Modern treaties are not identical documents. They reflect different histories, negotiations, geographical circumstances, governance structures and arrangements between indigenous governments and the Crown. Some contain detailed provisions regarding lands and resources. Others include self-government arrangements and distinct institutional responsibilities.

The bill gives the commissioner discretion to establish their own priorities and determine the number and frequency of reviews, performance audits and briefings conducted annually. This would create a practical challenge. How could one commissioner meaningfully determine the priorities across such a wide range of treaty obligations and indigenous governments? Which treaty partner would receive attention first? How would competing concerns be evaluated? What would happen when a matter is urgent to one indigenous government but is not identified as a priority by the commissioner? What would happen when overlapping interests in land between indigenous communities comes into conflict? Would the commissioner's office be able to intervene on such things? Modern treaties operate on the principle of cross-ministry implementation. How can one ill-defined commissioner's office meaningfully navigate a 345,000-member public service system across dozens of ministries and hundreds of departments? That is a recipe for failure.

The legislation would do little to to ensure that this discretion does not undermine treaty-specific arrangements or leave important implementation problems without timely attention. A strong oversight framework needs transparent criteria for establishing priorities. It should also provide meaningful opportunities for treaty partners to identify concerns and request reviews.

Conservatives believe in a strong future for first nations and indigenous peoples. We believe in self-government. We believe in modern treaties. We believe that clear legal relationships between indigenous governments and the Crown can provide certainty, support economic development and strengthen self-determination. We believe that the Indian Act should not be the permanent foundation of Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples. The goal should be to support indigenous nations in exercising greater control over their own affairs with legally defined relationships and practical mechanisms for resolving disputes and fulfilling obligations. Bill C-10 should be evaluated against those objectives.

If Parliament is going to establish an oversight office, it should ensure that the office has a clear and effective mandate. That includes transparent criteria for selecting review priorities, meaningful involvement of modern treaty partners, public reporting on unresolved implementation problems, clear expectations for the government's responsive and corrective action, and regular review of the office's effectiveness and costs. These are measures that could help strengthen accountability while respecting the distinct legal arrangements established by modern treaties.

Let me conclude by returning to the principle that should guide this debate. Modern treaties are about relationships, rights, responsibilities and the future of indigenous nations and Canada. They are not simply administrative agreements to be reviewed by federal officials. They are legal commitments that require serious implementation. Support for modern treaties must also mean demanding that the federal government honour its obligations. Bill C-10 provides insufficient accountability on whether its proposed commissioner could effectively address the diversity of modern treaties and whether the office would produce meaningful results for treaty partners.

Let us in this House continue to work toward a relationship between indigenous nations and Canada built on respect, certainty, responsibility and self-government, not one based on, arguably, the bare minimum in legislation that actually takes time and energy away from doing the work of building up the implementation of treaties. We cannot measure success simply by the number of audits completed or reports tabled. We must measure success by whether the treaty commitments are fulfilled by the government and treaty negotiators themselves.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for acknowledging how listening to our treaty partners is essential for reconciliation. This legislation was developed with the help of over 30 modern treaty partners.

How can the member say that the legislation would not be useful in helping to resolve problems with modern treaties when so many modern treaty partners helped develop this bill?

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Certainly, Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the years of work from those nations that have gone into this. However, I think that after 11 years of Liberal government, they have been beaten down so much that the bare minimum actually sounds great to a lot of people.

We can look at the water legislation. It has come back to the table, as was indicated earlier, and their latest complaint is that the legislation has completely ignored first nations' consultation over the last year. For this one, just to get it over the finish line, I get where the nations are coming from, but it could go further. It could go to a lot less meaningless bureaucracy at the end of the day.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be back and a pleasure to see you in the chair. I wonder if my colleague from Edmonton would mind giving his perspective. The member for Winnipeg West just spoke about the lack of consultation with treaty partners. I thought the question was a little bizarre coming from the member for Winnipeg West, given the member from Edmonton's history as a proud chief of his first nation and his relationship with the federal government and the Crown over the course of his service in that role.

I wonder if the member for Edmonton Northwest could give a little bit more clarity for the member from Winnipeg on this topic.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Madam Speaker, today's discussion primarily revolves around modern treaties, but I actually come from the historic treaties. It is Treaty 6's 150th anniversary this year. In fact, in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, they have treaty commissioners. I understand there was some minimal engagement with the design of those offices, but today those offices do nothing themselves to serve the treaty obligations in terms of meaningful impact. We are seeing historic record numbers of land claims, historic record numbers of lawsuits against the government, because of a lack of actual substance in these commissioners' offices. I do not see anything different with this one, despite a lot of the work that has gone into it.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, from what I understand from my colleague's remarks, he is afraid that the legislation will result in reports but no concrete action and thinks that it lacks sufficient teeth or enforcement mechanisms to ensure that results are achieved.

Could he give me an example of something that could really strengthen the bill?

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Madam Speaker, the government's principal direction with this legislation is a little misguided, or a lot misguided. There are commissioners negotiating and treaty negotiators within the departments themselves. I just visited a nation this summer that said it was insulted by the government sending a young, first-time public servant, and I feel sorry for that public servant, but it was an insult to those nations. I think the government should be concentrating on the department negotiators themselves, rather than a mechanism it knows is set up for failure to ultimately hold it accountable, which is going to go nowhere.

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

Madam Speaker, the member talked about meeting and honouring obligations. I wonder if the member can explain to me how Bill C-10 would prevent that from happening. I see it as a strong positive to have an independent agent of Parliament who is tracking those obligations and then reporting them, as an independent. I would think that would be a positive.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Well, Madam Speaker, I would pose a question back. How would it actually lead to obligation in the action of the government to implement those treaties? Again, Auditor General reports and other reports have not led to that obligation, that action. We have record numbers of land claims and lawsuits against the government because of its lack of action, so I would flip the question back to the member.

Business of the House

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion, which is seconded by the leader of the official opposition:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-38, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act (extension of the federal fuel excise tax relief), be disposed of as follows:

(a) the bill be ordered for consideration at the second reading stage on Tuesday, September 22, 2026;

(b) on Tuesday, September 22, 2026, the House shall continue to sit until midnight for the purpose of considering this bill, provided that, after 7 p.m., no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair, and when no member wishes to speak or at midnight, whichever is earlier, the bill shall be deemed read a second time on division and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance;

(c) the Minister of Finance and National Revenue be ordered to appear before the Standing Committee on Finance in relation to the bill for one hour, no later than Tuesday, October 6, 2026, followed by an additional hour to gather evidence from witnesses, and immediately after, the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill;

(d) the motion for third reading of the bill may be made in the same sitting during which the said bill has been concurred in at report stage;

(e) at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day the bill is considered at the third reading stage, or when no member wishes to speak, whichever is earlier, the bill shall be deemed read a third time and passed on division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.

Hearing none, it is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)