Debates of Oct. 7th, 2025

Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation Act

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for breaching the rules.

We have been having discussions with all parties, and our partners have been in discussions with parties. We hope to get unanimous consent to move this bill forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, treaties have evolved. Foundationally, defining aboriginal rights and title is a main part of treaty negotiation, versus extinguishing them. Given that the Liberal government is going to appeal the Cowichan court ruling, is there a reason aboriginal rights and title are not mentioned in Bill C-10?

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the bill is about addressing the commissioner for modern treaties. It is about the responsibilities of oversight and holding the government accountable. The focus is on the commissioner ensuring transparency and accountability from the government on modern treaties.

The modern treaties speak to different issues, and the commissioner would be reporting on those issues, but there is no need to identify everything in the modern treaties. The commissioner would ensure they are being implemented.

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

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to enable the appointment of a commissioner, who will obviously keep an eye on what is happening in all branches of the federal government.

However, modern treaties also concern relations with the provinces. Giving first nations autonomy to develop on their territory has an impact on the role of the provinces.

Can the minister reassure us that the commissioner will have no ties to the provinces and will respect provincial autonomy, given the current Liberal government's drive toward centralization?

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, this bill concerns the federal government and its obligations. It is about accountability before the House of Commons and the Senate. It is between the federal government and its modern treaty partners.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, can the minister expand on who was involved in the codevelopment of this bill and why it was important to involve those people?

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, it involved all modern treaty partners. What is important is that they have first-hand experience so they can outline the challenges and successes that are occurring in the relationships between the federal government and modern treaty partners. It was important to involve modern treaty partners.

Of course, with respect to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, we wanted to ensure that this was co-created. We developed this modern treaty legislation, and we continue to work together on many other policies and legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about a matter that goes beyond the very foundation of this country: the relationship between the Crown and indigenous peoples. That relationship is defined not only by our history, but by our honour. It is tested not by words or new offices, but by actions. It is measured not by the number of new bureaucracies we create, but by the commitments we fulfill and the promises we keep.

For decades, governments have spoken of reconciliation, yet reconciliation without accountability remains a broken promise. The Liberal government’s proposed Bill C-10, an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation, simply provides cover for its decade-long history of broken promises to indigenous peoples. The new office of the treaty commissioner would tell us nothing that the Office of the Auditor General and many indigenous leaders have already told us: that the government continues to fail.

I want to speak plainly about where we are in implementing modern treaties in Canada, what progress has been made, where failures persist and how we can fix the system without creating another costly bureaucracy at a time when taxpayers can ill afford it. However, before we discuss implementation, it is important to define what we mean by modern treaties and self-government treaties.

A modern treaty is a comprehensive land claims agreement negotiated between a first nation, Inuit or Métis group and the Crown, which means the federal government and sometimes provincial governments, that settles outstanding aboriginal rights and land claims. The purpose of a modern treaty is to resolve long-standing disputes over land ownership, resource rights and governance in a defined territory. The scope of a modern treaty can include land, resources, financial compensation and governance rights, and it often incorporates self-government provisions. However, not all modern treaties are full self-government agreements. Once implemented, modern treaties are enforceable by federal law and generally replace or clarify rights under historic treaties.

A self-government treaty is an agreement, often part of a modern treaty, that specifically recognizes and establishes an indigenous government with the authority to make certain laws in areas similar to a provincial or municipal government. Its purpose is to grant indigenous groups the right to govern themselves, which includes control over education, health care, culture and local services. The scope focuses on political authority and administrative powers rather than on only land and resources. Legally, self-government provisions are binding and implemented under federal law. They can exist as part of a modern treaty or as a stand-alone self-government agreement.

Understanding these distinctions is crucial. Implementation is not about creating new offices or new bureaucracy; it is about ensuring the Crown and its departments respect the legal authority already established in those agreements. I should note that the recent Whitecap Dakota's self-government agreement, which passed with Conservative support in 2023, is not a full modern treaty. There remain outstanding issues, which I understand the government continues to negotiate on.

I wonder exactly how a future commissioner of modern treaty implementation would be able to magically motivate the government to get this done. Naming and shaming is one way, yes, but the ministers can do that themselves. The ministers of each and every department can hold their departments accountable for failures rather than creating another new bureaucracy.

We know it can get done. In fact, the Conservatives, under Prime Minister Harper, signed five modern treaties in a span of six years. In over a decade, the Liberals have negotiated none. The five modern treaties include the Tlicho first nation's land claims and self-government agreement that happened in 2006, the Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement in 2009, the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement in 2009, the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation Governance Agreement in 2013 and the Déline Final Self-Government Agreement in 2015.

Make no mistake. I have said it once; I will say it again. The Conservatives support modern treaties. We support indigenous communities that want to get off the paternalistic and archaic Indian Act. What we do not support is the mistaken assumption that spending more taxpayer dollars compensates for the lack of accountability within government bureaucracy.

Who has been fired? Has anyone been fired for not living up to what the government signed? Have any departments done some reorganization because of the failures of the government to live up to its treaties? I have not heard that today in a speech.

How has the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations managed this internally? I know she is new. I get that she was elected just a few months ago, but this question still remains: How is a report from the new commissioner's office going to change things when dozens of Auditor General's reports on the failures of government have resulted in nothing moving forward?

The Office of the Auditor General conducts regular audits of treaty negotiations, modern treaties, self-government agreements, the implementation of them, and treaty land entitlements. Some of the audits include the 2005 report on the federal government meeting treaty land entitlement obligations, the 2006 report “Federal Participation in the British Columbia Treaty Process—Indian and Northern Affairs Canada”, the comprehensive “Audit of the Implementation of Modern Treaty Obligations” from 2013, and the 2016 report “Implementing the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement”. This does not even include the 14 Auditor General reports produced since 2015 on related issues facing first nations, Inuit and Métis.

Where are those reports? Has every government department been addressing the concerns tabled by the Auditor General? This is why indigenous leaders are calling for this legislation. Yes, they want to see more oversight, absolutely, but we think the failure is on the government. We think the government itself, within the bureaucracies, and the ministers themselves have not been pushing departments hard enough to live up to these modern treaties.

While governments continue to ignore the reports and audits from the Auditor General and continue to ignore treaty partners, there is still no collaborative modern treaty implementation policy, which happened in 2023. What would be a positive step forward considering the Liberal government is currently bogged down with 70 treaty negotiations, and two years later, it has not implemented anything?

Here is another crucial point. Implementation is not about new policies, new offices or new dollars going into bureaucracies. It is a question of whether current officials are doing their jobs, whether existing departments are held accountable and whether existing laws and commitments are enforced.

However, here we are today talking about a new office, a commissioner for modern treaty implementation, a multi-million dollar bureaucracy intended to monitor, oversee and report on implementation, an office that would not be entirely accountable to Parliament. The commissioner, government and treaty partners would decide when audits are conducted and how, not Parliament. Reports would be tabled by the minister a few weeks after they receive them, but Parliament would not have the power to initiate audits of the government's handling of modern treaty implementation.

With respect, that is the wrong approach. We do not need more bureaucrats. In fact, the Liberals really ought to learn from their past mistakes. Between 2015 and 2017, several new federal offices and initiatives were created to work on land claim implementation issues: the modern treaties 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.

Since the creation of these offices, as I have said before, no modern treaties have been established by the government. There are six entities specifically designed to monitor, support and ensure the implementation of these treaties, and now we are supposed to believe that finally we have the magic bullet that will solve it all.

Again, maybe the answer is to start firing those who are not doing their jobs, who are not living up to the commitments the government signed and is obliged to do. There are reports creating dust on shelves. Why are we not just doing what those reports have outlined? We need ministers and officials to take responsibility for obligations we already have, whether in modern treaties, self-government provisions or historic agreements.

Since the 1970s, Canada has sought to move beyond the numbered treaties through the negotiation of modern treaties, which are comprehensive land claim agreements that establish self-government, define rights and confirm jurisdictional authority. Today, there are over two dozen modern treaties in force across Canada, from the Yukon and Nunavut to British Columbia, Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador. These agreements represent some of the most advanced models of indigenous government anywhere in the world, yet today, the situation remains uneven.

Some treaty nations have made substantial progress in self-government and economic development. Others remain entangled in administrative barriers, forced to negotiate or litigate and litigate again for the very rights they thought they had already secured. For many indigenous governments, the experience of treaty implementation has been one of delay and paternalism. Departments interpret treaty commitments inconsistently, and fiscal transfers are too often designed to preserve federal control rather than encourage and enable indigenous autonomy. This results in what leaders have called “the illusion of implementation”: the appearance of progress without the substance of change. A treaty signed is celebrated. A treaty implemented is where the government drags its feet.

Across Canada, indigenous and treaty partners continue to wait for commitments signed decades ago to be fulfilled. Implementation remains chaotic and delayed. Fiscal transfers are late or incomplete. Departments pass down responsibilities back and forth like a file that nobody wants to own. In 2024, the Auditor General reported again that the federal system remains fragmented, bureaucratic and unaccountable. One of the greatest challenges is that no single department or body holds full responsibility for ensuring Canada’s compliance with its treaty obligations. Responsibilities are fragmented across Indigenous Services Canada, Crown-Indigenous Relations, Justice Canada and the Treasury Board, just to name a few.

This bureaucratic mess means that when commitments go unfulfilled, no one is held accountable, not politically, not financially and not morally. Instead of holding those responsible accountable, the government proposes spending millions on a new office to supervise what should already be happening. How many offices do we need to tell the government that it is failing? Adding one commissioner does not change culture or performance. Only enforcement, accountability and clear expectations can. A lot of this, as I have mentioned many times in my speech, has been outlined in various reports already tabled in this House over decades.

The Supreme Court's 2024 ruling in Restoule v. Canada was a stark reminder of what is at stake. For nearly 170 years, the Crown failed to honour the Robinson Huron Treaty, failing to adjust annuities as promised. The court called this a violation of the honour of the Crown, not an oversight but a breach of trust, yet instead of ensuring that departments and ministers simply fulfill their obligations, now we hear talk of creating another bureaucracy to monitor implementation. The honour of the Crown is not measured by bureaucratic reports or new offices but by results on the ground: homes being built, clean water and indigenous policing being named an essential service, something that was promised years ago by former prime minister Trudeau, which still has not happened. Infrastructure is crumbling. Governance and economic opportunity are what indigenous leaders are calling for, and it is Canada that has failed to live up to those obligations.

We have built a system that celebrates the signing of those treaties, but nothing is happening to ensure that they are being upheld, despite the reports, despite the information, despite the studies and despite the conversations that we have on the ground with indigenous leaders themselves who are calling for this. What should change is ministers and departmental officials being held responsible for their legally binding obligations. That will change when we start firing people who are not doing their jobs. If a treaty commitment is delayed or ignored, someone must be held accountable, not an office on Wellington Street but the department itself, the minister and the leadership who signed those agreements.

Safety and basic services remain uneven. As I mentioned before, indigenous policing is underfunded, housing is substandard and climate-related disasters disproportionately impact indigenous communities. The Auditor General has talked about all of this. The Auditor General has also outlined ways to fix it. The commissioner would not build houses. The commissioner would not hire police officers. A commissioner would not ensure clean water.

What is required is executive responsibility and operational diligence. Departments must prioritize, budgets must be executed properly, and ministers must ensure that existing laws are followed. That is how results are delivered, not by another layer of bureaucracy.

Federal programs designed to support indigenous communities are often mismanaged. Hundreds of non-indigenous firms have falsely claimed indigenous status to win contracts. Oversight came way too late. Do not forget ArriveCAN. A commissioner would not prevent fraud; proper departmental controls, accountability and enforcement would.

Similarly, free, prior and informed consent is often ignored in practice. Consultation without power is meaningless. A commissioner cannot give departments the political will to respect indigenous sovereignty; only leadership and accountability can.

Therefore the solution is clear: Departments need to do their jobs. The authority, the responsibility and the obligation already exist; we simply need to enforce them. Ministers must be held accountable. If an obligation is unfulfilled, it is not a bureaucratic problem; it is a leadership failure. Parliament must ensure consequences.

Indigenous governments must be partners in oversight. They should hold departments accountable directly, without requiring another costly office. Performance must be measurable. Tracking, reporting and enforcement can be done with existing systems, and I have already named a bunch, if officials are mandated to act rather than to report on not acting.

Reconciliation is measured in results: homes built, clean water delivered, indigenous policing, economic opportunity and the integrity of our nation-to-nation agreements. We do not need another commissioner. We do not need more bureaucracy. We do not need another office to spend millions of taxpayer dollars when we are already running massive deficits. We need ministers, departments and public service officials to simply do what they are legally required to do. If we honour our treaties, if we enforce accountability and if we expect results, then reconciliation is not just possible; it is inevitable.

Let us act here in the House with integrity, with resolve and with honour. Let us ensure that every promise is kept, not with more bureaucracy but with the discipline to actually do our jobs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised by the approach the Conservatives have decided to take on the legislation, but I am somewhat disappointed in their approach with respect to having an agent of Parliament report to Parliament with a certain level of expertise that is understood clearly by indigenous communities and indigenous leaders across this nation, who recognize how valuable an individual of this stature could be. It is unfortunate that the Conservatives do not recognize that.

Could the member provide his thoughts as to whether he believes that the Auditor General would have the same background knowledge to bring to the table?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out, the Auditor General has done many reports, and I would say the expertise was accepted at the time as an expert dive into the issues Canada is or is not living up to with modern treaty implementation, or with existing treaties and the lack of the implementation of those treaties.

I mentioned reports from 2005, 2006, 2013 and 2016, plus 14 more, that talked about where the government is failing when it pertains to first nations, Inuit and Métis. There is plenty of information out there. There are plenty of reports. Why has the government not acted on the recommendations?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my special thanks to the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes for his very thorough speech.

In this context, I find it particularly interesting that the member refers to the five modern treaties that his government was able to conclude during the Conservative years under Mr. Harper. That is one treaty less than the six social housing units built at the time by the current leader of the Conservative Party.

That said, people have been calling for the creation of a modern treaty implementation commissioner for over 20 years. This bill was co-developed with more than 130 groups that were consulted. This period of more than 20 years obviously covers the 10 years of the Liberal government, during which nothing was done with respect to modern treaties, but it also covers the years under the Conservative government.

Why are the Conservatives opposed to the swift creation of the commissioner position and the passage of the bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work with my Bloc colleague on the indigenous and northern affairs committee.

I understand why indigenous leaders are calling for the office of a modern treaty commissioner, because the government has been failing to implement existing treaties for decades. The government fails to implement its word on modern treaties. However, I will say again that the Auditor General has already produced a slew of reports as to how we can fix the problems. The government just continues to ignore the results and the reports. As I asked in my speech, who has been fired in departments? Who has been held accountable in departments to finally see some action?

I do not blame indigenous leaders who want to see the office created. I do not blame them for their frustrations with the government at all, but I question where the accountability is on the government side.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was a negotiator for my small native band, as well as a chief councillor, so I understand the frustration of the leaders. However, it seems to me that the first nations leaders are saying that the government-to-government relationship is not working because the government is not listening and not implementing a treaty. The government's response is, “Let's create a treaty commissioner.”

Is there any chance of a commissioner's getting treaty implementation done, versus a leader's having gone directly to government for the last 10 years at least to try to solve that exact issue?

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend for Skeena—Bulkley Valley raises a good point. It is exactly a fear that I share with the member, which is that if the office is created and there is another report, and another report after that a few years later, about where the government is failing on modern treaty implementation, will the government actually pay attention to that? Will the departments actually fix what has been broken?

The problem I keep raising, and I think what my friend is getting to as well, is that the failures have been outlined for decades. Would a new office fix this? My fear is that it would not.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not think my friend from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes and I have had an across-the-aisle exchange yet. I congratulate him on his re-election.

I would ask the member to please reconsider. There are a lot of reasons that those nations in this country, the indigenous nations that form the 26 modern treaties that have been signed and negotiated, have waited too long.

The bill before us was originally Bill C-77, which was introduced almost a year ago. It was allowed to die on the Order Paper. There is no point in going back over which parties are to blame for that, but now we must come together and get the bill passed. Can the member agree?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do support the fact that the government needs to live up to its modern treaty obligations. As I mentioned, the Harper government signed five in six years.

I would also point out to the member opposite that between 2015 and 2017, on top of the Auditor General's reports, which I have mentioned a million times, several new federal offices and initiatives were created to work on land claim implementation issues: the modern treaty implementation office, the assessment of modern treaty implications, the performance management framework, the modern treaty management environment and the deputy minister's oversight committee, as well as the reconciliation secretariat. How many more do we need before the government actually does its job?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that recognizing the nation-to-nation relationship between indigenous people and the Crown is of critical importance. There is legislation before us today that would ultimately enable an agent of Parliament who would report to Parliament, as opposed to just to the government or the opposition, and the Conservatives are making it very clear today that they oppose that.

Is it the Conservative Party's position that it will not support the bill's going to committee?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, the new office, as it is written, would report to Parliament. It would report to the Senate and to Parliament, but it would report to the government first, and the minister would then decide when the report would get to the Speaker and then be released to Parliament. Parliament would not have the opportunity to dictate where the audits go and what needs to be studied or examined. That is the problem the Conservatives have with it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague once again for his thoroughness and for the additional explanations he has provided during this question and comment period.

However, it is a bit contradictory to say that the role of commissioner is unnecessary but that he will support the bill anyway.

The Liberal government has absolutely nothing in its legislative agenda right now. We do not even know what we will be working on by the end of the week. Why is the member trying to save the Liberal government? Why not pass this bill quickly so it can be sent to committee where amendments can be proposed? Why not get it through the House as quickly as possible?

I would like my colleague to clarify that. Why is he so determined to defend this bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, yes, the bill will get to committee. We will study it, and I am pretty sure there will be amendments proposed. We will see what gets passed and what does not. We look forward to that process.

At the same time, however, we are in the chamber to debate, and the bill has been tabled. This is the first day it has been debated, so there are Conservatives members who want to speak to it.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I especially appreciate the emphasis my colleague has put on Conservative support for the reconciliation process with first nations, Métis and Inuit communities, and also the emphasis he put on the expense of creating another costly bureaucracy when families are struggling so hard to make ends meet.

The Auditor General's office is an independent institution that audits federal government operations to ensure accountability, transparency and the effective use of public funds. The proposed commissioner appears to do the same thing, without the concern of effective use of public funds.

Can the hon. member elaborate on the duplication?

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

Mr. Speaker, yes, that is something I outlined in my speech: how Parliament would not have the oversight it should. We will look at that in committee and hopefully get some amendments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that the government is taking an important step toward reconciliation with first nations today.

I would like to begin by paying tribute to the late Jim Aldridge, a distinguished lawyer, tireless advocate for modern treaty rights and friend to the Bloc Québécois. Throughout his career, Mr. Aldridge helped shape our legal and political understanding of modern treaties, particularly through his work with the Land Claims Agreements Coalition, or the modern treaty coalition. His commitment to establishing a fair and respectful framework for treaty holders continues to inspire this debate and sheds light on the very meaning of the bill that we are discussing today. His approach was based on the simple but profound idea that a treaty is not a memory of the past, but a living promise that will shape the future.

Jim Aldridge firmly believed that treaty implementation should be guided by transparency, accountability and institutional co-operation, the same principles that underpin Bill C-10, which is before us today. His intellectual and legal endeavours helped pave the way for what we are discussing here: an independent commissioner to monitor Canada's commitments and to report to both Parliament and indigenous peoples.

This debate bears the mark of his legacy. The concept of modern treaties is a path forward that will bring considerable benefits if we follow it. This type of agreement has enabled many indigenous communities to grow and to come up with new ways of seeing relationships between the first nations, Inuit, Métis and governments.

I want to talk about the first modern treaty, the groundbreaking one from Quebec. I am referring to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, which was signed in 1975 in response to the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Calder, when the court recognized the concept of aboriginal title to land for the first time in Canadian law. It was the first time the ancestral rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis people were recognized.

Many people consider the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement to be the first modern treaty. Getting this treaty signed was not easy, but it helped advance the cause of first nations and Inuit people in Quebec. This modern treaty has been enhanced many times over the years as a result of various agreements and other legislation. The last major enhancement was the peace of the braves agreement signed in 2002 by the late Bernard Landry and his counterpart Ted Moses, the grand chief of the Grand Council of the Crees.

The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement created a framework for land management between the Quebec, Cree and Inuit governments to enable indigenous communities within the territory to participate in the development of their land while preserving important traditional cultural activities, including hunting, gathering, fishing and trapping grounds. The agreement also provides a framework for education.

The James Bay Native Development Corporation was also created in partnership with Quebec to promote economic development and to give indigenous communities a say in the region's future development while being mindful of the environment. It also gave first nations and Inuit a voice in the administration of justice and social services. In short, the scope of this agreement broke new ground and served as a model for other treaties across Canada. Once again, Quebec was ahead of the curve. We were the first to start down that road.

For the Bloc Québecois, reconciliation has always been at the heart of our commitment to indigenous people. We feel it is crucial to make things fairer between us. Modern treaties like the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement are an incredible example of what we can accomplish when we take the time to talk and reach out to one another and when we swap the nation-to-nation or government-to-government negotiations for lasting partnerships in order to jointly build an open, free and informed dialogue where we understand one another and do things together.

That is also why the creation of a commissioner for modern treaty implementation is a policy that will move us forward and that we support. It is an example of co-creation and co-development, the result of engagement with more than 130 groups, including indigenous modern treaty partners, indigenous groups negotiating modern treaties, sectoral agreement holders, national indigenous organizations, and provincial and territorial governments.

Since Quebec first set out on this path, Canada has followed suit. Today, 26 modern treaties have been signed, with 18 of them containing self-government provisions. The treaties touch on numerous matters of particular concern for first nations, Inuit and Métis people. First, they strengthen indigenous governance by recognizing it and by working in partnership with it in various sectors. This acknowledges the jurisdiction and wishes of first nations, Inuit and Métis people.

In addition, the treaties help improve first nations, Inuit and Métis management of land and resources, by recognizing their rights and by empowering them to implement policies for better managing wildlife and resources while respecting the environment and the ancestral cultures and traditions of indigenous peoples. They support indigenous culture, language and heritage. This point really resonates with me as a Quebecker, because the preservation of our language and our culture is important to us. It is just as important to first nations, Inuit and Métis people. It is important to revitalize indigenous languages, help first nations, Inuit and Métis people preserve their traditional knowledge, and help them express their identity and tell their stories. Cultural exchanges are vital to our society. There is something special about going to see the Rouyn-Noranda hockey team play and having the game start with a drumming performance, for example. It makes a real impact and creates a magical experience.

Modern treaties also create more economic development opportunities for indigenous people. This helps them develop the tools they need to support their businesses and contribute to the Quebec, Canadian and international economies. It also leads to improved social development, especially in health and education, allowing first nations, Inuit and Métis communities to ensure that all of their residents can receive the care they need.

Lastly, modern treaties help communities play a role in protecting the environment. Caring for the Earth and protecting it is central to their culture. The concept of thinking seven generations ahead is about ensuring that we leave something tangible for those who come after us. These treaties touch on numerous points and help redefine our relationships.

As the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, I have also observed the impacts of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the peace of the braves agreement. The development of the Cree communities of northern Quebec has been significant. These communities have been able to further their economic development and meet the needs of their residents for everything from education to sports facilities, and this has improved the situation immensely. This partnership between Quebec, the Cree, the Inuit and the Naskapi has propelled these communities forward. That is why my dream is to see a modern treaty signed with the Anishinabe communities in my region. This would finally ensure the long-term development of the communities in my region by giving them the necessary power to develop the land, in partnership with local non-indigenous residents. I hope this message will be heard. I believe our reconciliation lies along that path.

Let us now turn back to Bill C-10, which was introduced by the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations. Generally speaking, this bill will create the office of commissioner for modern treaty implementation, whose role will be to oversee the implementation of treaties and act as a watchdog for first nations. This is a commendable step. It represents major progress for many indigenous peoples. However, it does not relieve Ottawa of its responsibilities towards first nations that are not covered by modern or numbered treaties. The primary purpose of this role is to ensure that the government fulfills its own obligations, that it honours its own commitments, particularly those around the nation-to-nation and government-to-government relationships embodied in these treaties. This reflects a will to change the culture of governance.

For too long, treaty implementation has suffered from a lack of follow-up, a lack of consistency across departments, and a lack of mechanisms for measuring actual progress. The result is that even decades after the signing of some modern treaties, indigenous partners still have to fight to get what they were promised. Bill C‑10 seeks to break that cycle.

It seeks to establish a framework where promises made are promises kept, where accountability becomes an institutional requirement rather than a favour. The goal is to make treaty implementation predictable, measurable and public, so that citizens, governments and signatories can track progress together.

This position will therefore ensure greater transparency and accountability. However, the fact that this position is needed in the first place demonstrates that the government needs oversight in order to successfully carry out its reconciliation efforts. We saw this with Bill C-5, where first nations were consulted hastily without obtaining their free, prior and informed consent. Failures such as this demonstrate that, despite the government's fine speeches, it continues to fail to provide high-quality services to the indigenous communities under its responsibility.

Even now, in 2025, many communities are still under boil water advisories, if they even have access to running water at all. The same thing applies to the housing shortages affecting so many communities, if their land base is even recognized. Although these situations may seem far removed from us, they are affecting indigenous communities in my riding. However, the arrival of a commissioner for modern treaty implementation will not lead to any improvements in this regard for the Anishinabe people of Abitibi—Témiscamingue because, as I mentioned earlier, they have no modern treaties. This once again shows how important it is that action be taken to improve this situation.

One key aspect of this bill is the commissioner's independence. I applaud that important fact. The person appointed to this position will serve a seven-year term, renewable only once. In this way, the commissioner will be able to act without necessarily fearing repercussions. The same process exists for other independent roles, such as the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the Privacy Commissioner and other similar positions.

However, I would like to stress that the appointment must be made after leaders of the various political parties in the House have been consulted. The intention is good, but it would be useful to look at what Quebec is doing in terms of appointments to similar positions. For example, in appointing the French language commissioner, the National Assembly of Quebec must hold a vote and two-thirds of its members must approve. This is also important for the Auditor General. In my opinion, it ensures that the persons appointed have the absolute confidence of the House. It might also be worthwhile for appointments to positions such as this to have the support of at least one other recognized party in the House. This would demonstrate the independent nature of the position.

The other thing that we should consider is access to information. I think it is crucial that the commissioner have access to all of the information they need to accomplish their mission. That is something that I would like to work on during the study of the bill. At the very least, I would like to ensure that the wording gives the commissioner the power to request and receive documents. It would not be good if departments were able to circumvent this power by citing an out-of-court agreement or by claiming that a document cannot be disclosed for various reasons. In my opinion, we must ensure that the wording of the bill does not prevent the commissioner from fully performing their role.

Another issue that I would like to look at during the study of this bill is its impact on provincial jurisdictions. As I explained, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement was signed by the Government of Quebec and first nations and Inuit. Thus, if the commissioner is to fulfill their role, they must focus solely on federal responsibilities. They cannot infringe on provincial areas of jurisdiction. I look forward to hearing from the various witnesses on the issue to ensure that everyone's jurisdictions are respected in this bill.

As my remarks will show, the Bloc Québécois agrees with the principle of the bill. We are simply pointing out elements that we want to reflect on with all stakeholders in order to improve it. However, I still have concerns about the role the government wants to play. The last budget, which was a very long time ago, provided $10.6 million over four years to establish the commissioner's office and functions. However, with the cutbacks the various departments are being asked to make, we have to wonder how much will really be earmarked for the commissioner. The commissioner must have the money they need to do their work. The November 4 budget must therefore confirm these amounts. Fortunately, a simple calculation shows that the government has already saved the first $2.65 million from budget 2024-25. I really hope that this money will remain in the same budget line to ensure the longevity of this new office. I know that indigenous organizations share our concerns.

We now move on to the most important aspect of this bill: how the office of the commissioner for modern treaty implementation will operate. Indeed, when they are preparing their reports, the commissioner will adhere to the same principles as the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development and the Auditor General of Canada. Federal institutions will have the same requirements as those imposed by the Auditor General of Canada. This is excellent news because the federal government will not be able to hide from its own failures.

I would also like the government to maintain the principle of committee appearances. I believe that the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs will also play an increasingly important role.

Nevertheless, it is important to point out that the commissioner will not have any enforcement powers. This means that the commissioner will identify deficiencies and the aspects of modern treaties that the federal government fails to fulfill, but the commissioner will not be able to step in or take any action. The various departments that work with first nations, Métis and Inuit will have to take action.

However, reports tell the real story of the implementation of and compliance with treaties. They will determine the level of Canada's true commitment to indigenous peoples. This will lead to accountability and give parliamentarians who care about first nations, Métis and Inuit a tool to call for meaningful action.

Indigenous partners, including the Land Claims Agreements Coalition, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Assembly of First Nations are calling for some adjustments, including the presence of a permanent indigenous advisory committee. It would also be important for results to be accessible in indigenous languages to ensure communities take ownership of the results. These organizations are asking for a shared tool that helps ensure transparency and not a one-way report from the government to Parliament. I would therefore like to make some amendments to improve this bill.

I want to acknowledge the consultation and co-creation process that the department went through to put this legislation together. As I said, it is a step in the right direction. It is a meaningful step, and I hope it will build trust between the government and indigenous peoples.

In closing, I would like to once again pay tribute to Jim Aldridge, who dedicated his life to promoting the understanding that the implementation of treaties is the cornerstone of a just and lasting people-to-people relationship. His work requires us to go further and turn words into action.

That is the ideal that Bill C‑10 must live up to. It is not just about creating a position; it is about rebuilding trust between the Crown and the signatories, trust between institutions and people and trust that promises will be honoured.

Treaty signatories are clearly not asking for something symbolic. They want a tool that will produce real change, a mechanism to ensure that modern treaties, the foundations of our federation, finally become living, visible realities respected by all.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I think in terms of the legislation, I believe it is ultimately a reality today because of the advocacy of indigenous leaders. This is not something just any political party has been advocating for, but it is something that is long overdue. Ultimately, if we respect the issue of nation to nation relations and indigenous community leaders, this is the type of legislation that will make a positive difference.

I wonder if my friend can continue to add to his comments when he makes reference to indigenous partnership, even in the development of the legislation we have today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pretty sure I talked about that in my speech.

We know the idea of consultation is fragile. Bill C‑5 showed us how the government can worm its way out of things. How can anyone think that merely sending a letter and giving certain indigenous communities—not all of them, just some of them—five days could possibly make them feel they have been consulted? That is where things can go awry, and that is why this commissioner position is so essential.

Again, this is about modern treaties. The government must be willing to improve living conditions as well and implement modern treaties faster for those who do not currently have them.