Debates of Oct. 7th, 2025

Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation Act

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

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the independence of this commissioner, should the agency be created. I wish to point him to subclause 28(2), which examines how the commissioner, should the agency be formed, reports. His or her report would go to the minister first, then to the Speakers of both chambers, the Senate and the House. I question that chain of events.

As the Auditor General does, this new commissioner could compel documents and look into reports, but they could not force the government to do anything. We have tons of reports that do not get implemented. Given that we have already had a whole slew of Auditor General reports, what faith does this member have that this new agency, this new commissioner, would actually have a different effect?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am aware of my colleague's interest in indigenous affairs, but also in public accounts. His question seems to allude to an amendment that we are going to study and that I am obviously inclined to support.

Having watchdog positions whose role it is to bring things out into the open is essential in any democracy. All parliamentarians and the public, especially indigenous, Metis and Inuit communities, have a responsibility to take a hard, critical look at this government's actions and, above all, its inaction.

I have no doubt this will be a useful tool considering that, over the course of our daily activities, we lack the ability to go and check what has or has not been done or follow up on every recommendation. Personally, I welcome this initiative.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his very cogent and interesting speech. If the past is any indiction, I would say that we have often seen the government roundly criticize the reports of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who was at least able to inform the House of the government's excesses. My concern is that the first nations commissioner will suffer the same fate.

I would like my colleague to tell us about the possible impact of this new commissioner's reports to the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe in this function of independent officers, in those who have a comprehensive view of the work of the House, who rise above partisan politics and who emphasize accountability. To me that is fundamental.

In our work, raising these issues also helps us to better understand the reality of what is happening on the ground in our own constituencies. All too often, it is upsetting. The government may have good intentions toward indigenous people, but then it only allocates funds to build two housing units even though two housing units per community is not enough, considering the growth of the indigenous population and the fact that we are in the midst of a housing crisis.

We need to be able to have more robust mechanisms in place in order to deliver what the public expects.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think that as we go through the debate on the legislation, and I will make reference to a specific example momentarily when I stand up to speak to it, for the government, it is about not only the documents that we sign off on but also the reality of how we are supporting indigenous communities. If we take a look, in terms of the last number of years, we will see that the financial support has been there. I will cite a couple of examples shortly, but I am wondering if the member would not recognize that we have provided financial resources and have been moving forward on the whole idea of reconciliation, particularly the 94 calls to action.

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

Mr. Speaker, that will allow me to make further points. The problem is not that the amounts are not announced in a transparent manner by the government. The problem is the actual application of these funds. Standards are being imposed that do not apply to the reality of first nations and northern communities. This means that, in the current context, billions of dollars announced in budgets that make the Liberals look good and show that they are sensitive to the issues are not actually being spent. These funds go back to the Treasury Board, and the situation on the ground does not improve. I am not saying that this is the case everywhere, but it is what we are seeing in many cases.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with what the member just said. It is about implementation, and his colleague from Jonquière brought up the exact same point I was trying to make. The Auditor General has a whole library of reports on where the government is failing on a whole range of points, whether it is related to weather, clean water or something else. It is already there. This goes back decades, for 150-plus years. The government is not living up to its treaty obligations, whether modern or otherwise. If the Auditor General, independent from Parliament, tables this report, why does he have confidence all of a sudden that this new commissioner will actually be able to force the government to do something that it has not done for 150-plus years?

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

Mr. Speaker, our positions can change here in the House.

I was indeed inclined to support the speedy passage of this bill because of the clear consensus that has emerged, because first nations have been calling for it and it was co-created, and because the commissioner is independent and there will be ways of implementing it.

I find the points that my colleague raised in his speech to be particularly relevant. I now think that we need to study this bill in more depth in committee and hear from witnesses. I am very curious to see what amendments will be proposed to improve this bill, especially by the Conservative Party. I already have a few in mind, and I think that the work that we do in committee must be as rigorous as that of my colleague.

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

Mr. Speaker, I also share the view my friend just mentioned. We are still not at the point that we are absolutely certain this would actually change anything. We would be creating a bureaucracy starting at about $2 million and change every single year for the next five years. When we compare it to other offices like it, we are in the tens of millions, so I do not accept that the cost would stay the same.

Again, it is about results. I think what we can do is support that modern treaties need to be implemented once signed. We can forget the photo op, although I know all politicians like to do that. We can do the photo op, but we should ensure the treaty is implemented. We have the Auditor General's report and we have all these departments looking after it. Has anyone been fired because of that? The answer is probably no. Maybe we should start there first.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes. I will learn the name of his riding since we work together fairly often. I like to see him working hard, persevering and getting down to business. That is what we will have to do.

As for the question that he raised, I completely agree with him on the principle. Accountability rules are fundamental in our democracy. I am aware that the commissioner will not make the decision that the minister failed to make in the past. Crown-Indigenous Relations needs to make the creation of new, modern treaties a priority so that everyone has access to equal opportunities.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today and speak to yet another very important piece of legislation that the government has presented to members of the House. As with previous legislation, I would encourage members to get on board with recognizing where it is coming from and see the benefit of having legislation of this nature become law.

There are a number of things I would like to express.

In dealing with the legislation itself, it is important for us to realize how, in essence, it came into being. We did not see bureaucrats sitting around a table ultimately dictating something from the federal government. In fact, there has been extensive work done to ensure it comes from the leadership within the indigenous community. The legislation reflects issues that were ultimately raised by indigenous leaders.

We have this legislation before us today in good part because of the commitment to improve that nation-to-nation relationship we often talk about. It is a significant step toward reconciliation. Even though it is not part of Murray Sinclair's calls to action, I believe that, if we capture their principles and essence, this could have very easily been a 95th call to action. It is a very powerful statement that will become reality if, in fact, we can get it passed through the House of Commons.

In listening to the comments thus far, I am very much encouraged by those from the Bloc. I have some reservations with regard to the Conservatives, and I would like to address those head-on.

In the questions and answers that were posed, I believe that maybe there is some flexibility and some room to see potential changes to the legislation that would satisfy the Conservatives, at least in part. I think we need to, at the very least, explore that possibility.

I would suggest that one of the ways we can best explore that possibility is this: After hearing a number of hours of debate on the legislation, some would like to see a smaller number of hours of debate and allow it to go to the committee, where we could hear first-hand from indigenous leaders and other stakeholders. We could hear what it is the Conservatives might say that could improve the legislation.

Let me start off by addressing what seems to be the primary concern of the Conservatives. Two points come to my mind. One is cost and the other is the federal Auditor General.

I will deal with the issue of cost. I could probably spend a little while talking about the cost of not taking actions such as this to all of us. All one needs to do is take a look at the last federal election. There was an issue that came up at every other door. If I raised it, it was 95% of the doors I knocked on. It was a concern about trade, Trump and tariffs, if I can put it in the form of the three Ts. It meant a great deal no matter what the person's background, whether they were from a first nation or anywhere else. It had to do with the impact this is going to have on us economically and socially.

That is why I think the position of the Prime Minister was the right position at the time. He recognized that, if we are going to grow collectively into the future, we need to have one Canadian economy. That is not possible without indigenous leaders at the table. When we talk about nation-to-nation relationships, having both direct and indirect input is of critical importance. We saw that in a very tangible way after the election. We had ministers and others dealing with many different stakeholders, whether provinces, territories, indigenous leaders or others, in order to see what we can do to build upon one Canadian economy.

I do not think it is a coincidence. We can look at the first modern treaty, which has already been cited once or twice now. It was for the James Bay project in northern Quebec. That modern treaty enabled indigenous community members and people living in Quebec to benefit immensely. It was because of that agreement. It enabled the parties at the table to develop an economic opportunity that would never be where it is today were it not for having a modern treaty.

That is why I say we get a lot of benefit when we recognize the true value of modern agreements and these treaties. They are critically important. They are part of the Constitution. There is a constitutional mandate that everyone who lives in Canada has to respect and act upon. A modern treaty is like a living document that needs modifications. Yes, it would be wonderful if all first nations were incorporated into a modern-day treaty. I think it is important that we continue to work in that direction. As the minister commented in her introduction, these are not documents that are made overnight. We need to recognize that it takes time to make these modern treaties a part of reality.

Let us look at the preamble of the legislation. I do not often refer directly to the legislation, but I think it is worth noting what is stated in the preamble. It is relevant to what we should be talking about today.

It states, “Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to achieving reconciliation with First Nations, Inuit and the Métis through renewed nation-to-nation, Inuit-Crown and government-to-government relationships based on the recognition of rights, respect, cooperation and partnership”.

It also states that “modern treaties are part of the constitutional framework,” which is something I have already made reference to, “and represent a distinct expression of that reconciliation”. It also states that “modern treaties are intended to establish a mutually agreed-upon and enduring framework for reconciliation and ongoing relationships between the Government of Canada and Indigenous peoples”.

It goes on. I am not going to read all of it, but I want to emphasize a couple more points, which members should refer to.

It states:

Whereas modern treaties are intended to strengthen the health, dignity, well-being and resilience of Indigenous peoples, to create enduring relationships between modern treaty partners and to advance national socio-economic objectives that benefit all Canadians;

I want to emphasize that one because the Prime Minister has been pushing to build one Canadian economy. Earlier in September, we had an indication of five major projects. We are talking about 60 billion dollars' worth of economic opportunities. That is “billions” with a “b”. If we factor in the indirect contributions, it is a whole lot more. I can tell members that if it was not for indigenous leadership, a number of those projects would not be possible. Indigenous leaders, businesses and entrepreneurs are at the table, along with others, to ensure that we build a stronger, healthier economy and social fabric in our nation. It might have been encouraged through some of the actions of President Trump, but I can say that these are real projects.

Let us look, for example, at LNG in British Columbia and who the proponents are for that particular project. Reconciliation is about a lot more than just saying, “Sorry”. It is about dealing with opportunities, remembering the past and going forward to build a stronger and healthier economy for all people in Canada. We can talk about the copper mines we are expanding through the five megaprojects. There are particular projects in western Canada where I focus that are critically important to all of us.

Continuing on with the preamble of the legislation, there is one last area I would like to quote.

It states:

Whereas the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states that Indigenous peoples have the right to the recognition, observance and enforcement of treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements concluded with States or their successors and to have States honour and respect such treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements;

I want to highlight those aspects because I genuinely believe that Bill C-10 is all about the creation of an agent of Parliament who is there to recognize the obligations of Parliament.

The two primary concerns, it seems to me, that the Conservatives have about the bill are with respect to the cost factor. The critic said that, when dealing with the costs, we are talking about several million dollars. I made reference to building an economy and how, through reconciliation and having agreements, we are able to achieve an economic success we might not have if we did not have that sort of relationship.

When we think of the agent of Parliament, let me suggest that it is well worth the few millions of dollars that it would cost to put it into place.

The other argument being used is about the issue of expertise. As the critic for the Conservative Party made reference to, we have the Auditor General and the Auditor General should suffice. I would ultimately argue that this is not the case. Having the agent of Parliament being proposed through Bill C-10 is very different from having the Auditor General deal with the situation.

Let me give members an example of that. I am a very big fan of Murray Sinclair. My home province is Manitoba, the birthplace of Murray Sinclair. I have been an MLA and am now a member of Parliament, and I have been in politics since 1988. I got to know the late Murray Sinclair and saw first-hand the impact that this individual had on our nation in whatever role he played. I especially got to know him a little better when he was appointed a senator.

Let me suggest why I raise Murray Sinclair. It is because across Canada, from coast to coast to coast, Murray Sinclair's report on the state of indigenous people in Canada and the relationship between the different levels of government has been widely accepted and supported. When Murray Sinclair made the report back in 2015, with its 94 calls to action, I was sitting in the third party. This was back in 2014, going into 2015, a few years ago. At the same time, Murray Sinclair made it very clear that these 94 calls to action were of the utmost importance in dealing with reconciliation. Even though Bill C-10 technically is not one of those calls to action, I believe that if Murray Sinclair could have a 95th, this would likely be it, because it is about accountability and transparency.

If it were not for Murray Sinclair, his life experiences and the knowledge he brought to the table, we would not be where we are today. I would suggest to the Conservatives to take a look at the type of individual who will be filling this particular position. This commissioner, an independent agent of Parliament with an incredible background who is appointed for seven years, cannot be replaced by the Auditor General of Canada. Murray Sinclair demonstrated that very clearly.

The purpose of my standing today is to show the Conservative Party that the merits of this legislation, at the very least, deserve to be brought to the committee stage, where the Conservatives can then deal in more detail with their concerns. Let us recognize that this legislation is good, solid and should pass—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member for Kenora—Kiiwetinoong.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is more typical Liberal legislation. I have had the honour of serving on the indigenous and northern affairs committee for many years now. Over and over, we have seen the government make big promises and then take very little action.

The member spoke about the 94 calls to action, but only 14 or 15 have been completed by the government. It made big promises on drinking water and did not follow through. In the fall of 2022, the government said that legislation was around the corner to make first nations policing services essential, and we are still waiting for that legislation. The same can be said for modern treaties. The government has achieved zero.

Why are the Liberals looking to create more bureaucracy and spend more, instead of just moving forward with modern treaties? They already have the power to do that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one thing I am always cognizant of is that at times there are political entities in the chamber that provide misinformation. We are close to having 20 of the recommendations completed. Not all 94 recommendations are federal responsibilities. For example, the Pope gave an apology. The federal government may have tried to influence the Pope, but it was the Catholic Church that ultimately had to deal with that particular recommendation.

Of the recommendations the federal government is responsible for, at least 80% are under process. We cannot just click our feet, wave a magic wand and have them completed. Many of the recommendations take years to complete.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives support modern treaties, but there are concerns that with this bill, the establishment of an independent commissioner and office would lead to more government bureaucracy. In his speech, my Conservative colleague from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes mentioned alternatives to prevent this.

How can the member opposite be certain that in the establishment of the commissioner position, no government bureaucracy will take place?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I spent a great deal of my time noting how, from an economic and social point of view, it is in our best interests collectively as parliamentarians, representing all of Canada, to ensure that we continue to make progress on indigenous relationships, nation to nation. I believe this legislation further advances that by ensuring that we have an official agent of Parliament to assist in pushing the government to take necessary actions.

I wanted to talk about Shoal Lake 40 First Nation, and I hope to get another opportunity to do so.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about making progress on these issues. I would point out that under a Conservative government, we signed six modern treaties, and that under 10 years of Liberal government, no modern treaties have been signed. Does the member think that is progress?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as the minister who introduced the legislation explained, it takes years to get a modernization project. I suspect that many of the modernization treaties that were signed by Stephen Harper began under Paul Martin. All one needs to do is look at Paul Martin's impact on the Kelowna Accord, something Stephen Harper opposed. Had Stephen Harper supported it, we would have seen a lot more support on the issues of housing, education and health, which really—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars back in 2005.

At the end of the day, I do not have a problem comparing records. All one needs to do is to look at the calls to action and look at our record.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague from Winnipeg North. He mentioned that true reconciliation is not limited to apologies. I would like him to explain to us today why his government is not repealing the Indian Act, a discriminatory, colonial and paternalistic law imposed on first nations. That piece of legislation embodies everything that stands in the way of true reconciliation.

Why, after all these years, has his government not taken steps to repeal the Indian Act?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

That is a really good question, Mr. Speaker. I have often thought that myself. When I talk to indigenous leaders and non-indigenous people who are trying to move that file forward, it is often raised.

I believe it is a fairly complicated issue, so I am not prepared to answer at this time. I do not have that level of expertise, but it is something that I too, from what I hear, would like to see disposed of. I wish it were that simple.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is from Winnipeg, which has a sizable indigenous population. He has been very engaged in consultation with members of his own community. What is the member hearing from those in his constituency and how would he expect that to apply across Canada?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the most prominent individuals I have had the pleasure of representing, who I believe has moved out of Winnipeg North, is the current national chief, Cindy Woodhouse, someone I classify as a personal family friend. She is a very powerful, strong voice for indigenous community members throughout the country. I have learned a great deal from her. It is one of the reasons I am an advocate for ensuring that we continue to push the envelope in dealing with reconciliation and getting the job done on certain projects, like the Shoal Lake 40 First Nation's Freedom Road. Do members know how long it waited for that to happen? There is also the water treatment plant at Shoal Lake to get rid of the boil water advisories.

We want to continue to advocate for good, healthy policy and budgetary measures.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary can highlight why it was so important for this legislation to come forward now and why we should pass it through the House as expeditiously as possible.