“I do not want this bill to pass. It creates another government office instead of actually fixing treaty problems. A new commissioner will not build houses, provide clean water, or make communities safer.”

“Madam Speaker, it has been an honour to serve the residents of Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge and now Mission for going on seven years. I appreciate this role and take my responsibilities seriously. Today is the first day of a fall session. I was a teacher for many years prior to being elected, and September is the start of a new school year, not only in elementary and high schools but also on campuses, with new sports programs, dance classes and many other activities. There is a sense of excitement among many students at the beginning of something new and getting involved. I want to wish students and teachers a successful and fulfilling year. I have a confession to make. As we enter this fall session, I do not have the same excitement. As a matter of fact, I have a bit of a heavy heart over what has been happening in our beautiful country of Canada for the past years under the Liberal government and, I would also add, in my province of British Columbia under the NDP government. Millions of Canadians are struggling to make ends meet. They are feeling the cost of living squeeze at the grocery stores and gas pumps. Small business owners tell me they feel that the government is, in many respects, warring against them to make them unprofitable and increase regulatory and tax burdens. Canada has dropped like a rock in our ranking in per capita income compared to the rest of the world. I will not talk about crime in our communities or drugs on the streets. However, I must give credit to the Liberals where credit is due. They are master illusionists. Has anyone ever seen a magician saw an attractive assistant in two, only for the assistant to appear whole, with the wave of a wand and the swoosh of a cape? How do magicians do it? It is a little easier now with AI to find out their secrets. The Liberals are masters of illusion. They give the appearance of doing things, tricking our eyes and minds, but it is an illusion. One and a half years ago, the Prime Minister talked about moving Canada forward at unimaginable speed on major infrastructure and economic projects and about the need to rapidly diversify. Things have been pretty stagnant on that front. They may be able to point to one or two different projects, but it has been very sluggish. They said lots of good-sounding words and talked about doubling housing that is going the wrong direction. I asked my parliamentary assistant how many new bureaucracies and offices the Liberals have they formed since they have been in government, and he sent me a list. It came to almost 50. There are 48 announced to be funded and formed, layers and layers of bureaucracies weighing down taxpayers with more debt, more regulations, more paper shuffling and more delays. Therefore, when the Liberal government tells me that Bill C-10 will fix its relationship with indigenous peoples by adding a new bureaucracy, I have to ask a simple question: With what? When we open the box, there is nothing inside. We have tried this before. As I asked in my question to the parliamentary secretary moments ago, between 2015 and 2017, the government created the modern treaty implementation office, the assessment of modern treaty implementation office, the performance management framework, the modern treaty management environment, the deputy minister’s oversight committee and the reconciliation secretariat, six separate entities specifically designed to monitor, support and ensure treaty implementation. At this rate, I have to ask: How many government offices does it take to change a light bulb? Apparently, it is six, or I guess seven now. After six offices and committees and layers of bureaucracy, the light bulb is still out. It is a bureaucracy and a government that have run amok. In 2024, the Auditor General again reported that the federal system remains fragmented, bureaucratic and unaccountable. Responsibility is scattered across Indigenous Services Canada, Crown-Indigenous Relations, Justice Canada and the Treasury Board. When commitments go unfulfilled, no one is accountable, not politically, not financially, not morally. It is like it is their fault. Adding a commissioner does not change culture or performance. Only enforcement, accountability and clear expectations can. The government’s response is what we have in the bill, to create yet another agency to monitor implementation. Success should not be measured in bureaucratic reports. It should be measured in results on the ground, homes, water, policing, infrastructure, governance and economic opportunities. A commissioner will not build a house. A commissioner will not hire a police officer. A commissioner will not deliver clean water. The Liberal philosophy is that Ottawa always knows best, that Ottawa must monitor, that Ottawa must supervise. The Liberals want to teach from above instead of supporting from beside. Bill C-10 is the purest expression of that instinct. Indigenous communities do not need a commissioner. The government needs a mirror. Its record is damning. The government has had 11 years to act. In that time, how many new modern treaties has it delivered? The answer is zero. That is a fact. In contrast, the Conservative government, under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, without all these extra bureaucracies, produced five modern treaties in six years. This is not a question of capacity or goodwill. It can be done and it has to be done. The government knows it has failed indigenous people, and it knows that the Auditor General has told it so, not once, not twice, but repeatedly. There is the 2005 report on treaty land entitlements, the 2006 report on the B.C. treaty process, the 2013 audit of modern treaty implementation, the 2016 report on the Labrador and Inuit Land Claims Agreement. There have been more than 14 reports since 2015, covering housing, clean water and treaty implementation, more than two decades of road maps. Instead of following the map, the government got lost in its own maze of offices, titles and press conferences. While it wandered in the wilderness, communities have suffered. Treaty rights have not been honoured. Fiscal transfers have been delayed. Infrastructure has crumbled. Policing was underfunded and housing has been inadequate. In 2023, the government even proposed a collaborative modern treaty implementation policy. That sounded like progress, especially with 70 treaty negotiations bogged down. Two years later, nothing has been implemented. We do not need another report telling us that the government has failed. We already know that. I ask the House how a future commissioner of modern treaty implementation would magically motivate the government to finish the work. It would not. The problem has never been a lack of oversight. The problem is a lack of execution, a lack of political will and a lack of ministerial accountability. There are some alternatives. I will maybe get to that in my responses to some questions. I will say that we already have the courts. We have the Auditor General. We already have parliamentary committees, deputy ministers, performance frameworks and internal audits. The government does not need another reminder that it is failing to do its job. Over 100,000 public servants have been added since 2015, with $20 billion a year spent on external consultants. We have a public service that is larger than ever, a public service more ineffective in every respect. Faced with that failure, the Liberal answer is always the same, one more office, just one more commissioner and just one more structure. Actually, it is not just one more. The Liberals are going a dime a dozen. It is the illusion of action.”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “The assessment of modern treaty implementation office.”

  Said 3 times by 2 members since September 21.

  Every time it was said →

“I do not support this bill. Other agencies already do this work, and we do not need to create more bureaucracy. Ministers should report to Parliament directly and be held responsible when treaty obligations are not met.”

“Madam Speaker, certainly we support auditors general and different agencies, but we do not need half a dozen or a dozen agents doing the same exact work or with a slight modification. A key aspect is just to hold ministers accountable. Every minister should report to Parliament on treaty implementation. If an obligation is unfulfilled, this is not a bureaucratic problem. It is a leadership failure and there must be consequences. We need to reduce government. We need to reduce bureaucracy instead of expanding it.”

“I support creating this commissioner and office. The government must keep its treaty promises. But we should not have six different groups doing the same job.”

“Madam Speaker, I thank the Bloc member. I agree with him. I say yes to an office, a commissioner, but no to six different ways of doing the same thing. I think that is important. I fully agree that the government has a responsibility to fulfill its duty and do its job.”

“This bill creates a commissioner to make sure the government follows through on modern treaties. That shows the government already expects to break the promises it is making to First Nations right now. It should not need a whole new office just to keep its word.”

“Madam Speaker, the comments from the member for Winnipeg North are really interesting because the member from Edmonton earlier admitted that there is a treaty commissioner that some provinces have, to deal with the failure of government to follow through with the commitments of the historic numbered treaties. I think everybody finds that to be very reasonable. However, this bill would create a modern treaty commissioner. With numerous modern treaties it is actively pursuing, some of which are before this House for debate, the government is admitting that it is already preparing for the fact that it is not going to follow through with the commitments that it has written into those treaties. The government needs to create another independent office at the same time as it is passing these treaties, to make sure it actually keeps the commitments that it is making to the first nations people in this country. That is a bit outrageous, and I wonder if my colleague from British Columbia would agree.”

“Governments must work together without repeating each other's work. Conservatives want prosperity for all Canadians, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous. We need real action, not just the Liberals' endless paperwork.”

“Madam Speaker, yes, working together with the different levels of government and not duplicating is key, just to become effective. Conservatives believe in prosperity for all Canadians, indigenous and non-indigenous, and so we need to get things moving and not just paper shuffling, which is what the Liberals are great at doing.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 39 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 34 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“The member proves my point. The Liberals have failed to put modern treaties into practice, and they need to finish the job.”

“Madam Speaker, the member reinforces our point that there are tremendous gaps that the Liberals are responsible for, and they need to get the job done.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 33 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“A government report says the minister is responsible for carrying out modern treaties. But the minister said today that a new commissioner would do it instead. I want to know who is actually responsible.”

“Madam Speaker, I am looking at a government document. It is titled “Implementation of Modern Treaties and Self-Government Agreements”. It is a provisional annual report. It states that the implementation of modern treaty commitments is the responsibility of the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations. Earlier this morning, at the beginning of the debate, we heard the minister state that it was not the minister’s responsibility. It would be part of the new commissioner’s role. Who is going to be responsible for it? Will it be the minister, as the government’s own document states, or the commissioner, as the minister stated?”

“I do not support this bill. The government should just follow the treaties it already signed instead of creating a new commissioner with no real power. We should spend this money to directly improve the lives of Indigenous people.”

“Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada has certain obligations in relation to the treaties it signs. It is the responsibility of the prime minister, the ministers and all our institutions to act in a way that responds to those obligations. This legislation would create an additional commissioner office with staff, without binding powers over government action. It seems to me that the core of accountability is the decisions of government in response to these obligations. What prevents the government from simply fulfilling its obligations, from listening to indigenous nations directly, from using the existing institutions we have and from putting these resources into things that actually concretely and positively impact the lives of indigenous people?”

“I do not support this bill. We already have the Auditor General to check on modern treaties. Setting up a new commissioner will cost over ten million dollars and create more bureaucracy. Ministers should do their jobs and answer directly to Parliament instead of passing the buck to a new office.”

“Madam Speaker, I am very happy to be back in the House with my colleagues and to have the opportunity to discuss the major global issues and serious challenges that our country is currently facing. Today, we are here to discuss Bill C‑10. Bill C‑10 proposes to create a new officer of Parliament, a commissioner for modern treaty implementation. Their role would be to assess whether the terms of modern treaties are being met and to report their findings to Parliament. By conducting audits and reporting their findings to Parliament, the new commissioner would be able to highlight areas where the federal government can improve its performance in modern treaty implementation. There is common ground when it comes to the core principle that treaty rights must be respected and that the process of reconciliation must move forward. The Conservatives support treaty rights and the process of reconciliation with Canada’s first nations, Inuit and Métis people. They also recognize that much work remains to be done to advance those rights, including self-determination and self-government. What the Conservatives disagree with is the mechanism proposed in Bill C-10. The Conservative Party believes that, rather than creating more bureaucracy, the ministers and departments responsible for negotiating and implementing treaties should do their jobs. The Office of the Auditor General already conducts regular audits of modern treaty negotiations, self-government agreements, implementation and treaty land entitlement. The Conservatives firmly believe that the ministers and departments responsible for treaty negotiations and implementation should simply fulfill their responsibilities rather than creating a new position. The projected cost for the office of the commissioner for modern treaty implementation is $10.6 million over four years, with approximately 15 full-time employees. The debate on Bill C-10 is about how to ensure the implementation of modern treaties and hold the federal government accountable. The importance of this accountability is clear: All commitments made under modern treaties must be honoured. The Conservatives support treaty rights and the process of reconciliation with Canada’s first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. The disagreement is not about the goal, but rather how to achieve it. In conclusion, the Conservatives believe that the solution is not to create a new body or add a new bureaucratic structure. The Office of the Auditor General already conducts audits on modern treaties and their implementation, and several federal initiatives and offices already exist in this area. Rather, the responsibility lies with the ministers and departments already in charge of negotiating and implementing the treaties. They need to step up and do their job. That is why the Conservative position is to oppose Bill C-10. I hope that was clear. My French is a bit rusty, so I will continue a bit in English. That was not the conclusion of my speech; it was just the conclusion of the French part. I am sorry to get members’ hopes up. It is good to be back in the House, the people’s House, during what is certainly a tumultuous time for our country and for the world. We are discussing Bill C-10, which deals with modern treaties but which also speaks to the kind of architecture we use as a country to hold the government accountable and to challenge or constrain government decision-making. I think this is an important conversation to be having now in the context of broader debates about the nature of our institutions and how we use them. Of course, we are having this debate in the context of an escalating trade war between Canada and the United States. It was in the context of the further escalation of that trade war that Conservatives called for the early reconvening of Parliament so that we could come together and work through, debate and discuss the issues that were before the House and that are before the country. We would have brought what was clearly the business of the nation before the House. Unfortunately, the Liberals chose not to do that, but that underlined, I think, a difference in philosophy about the role of Parliament in response to these events. In the context of threats to our country, there are obviously the fundamentals on which all of us agree. I guess we do have, respectfully, some separatists in the House, but most of us are here out of a devotion to the strength and unity of Canada. We are here because we love Canada. We disagree about the mechanisms, the processes and the policies that are in the national interest, but most of us are here because we deeply love this country. As I think about the idea of love and of loving one’s country, I am drawn to that famous line from The Brothers Karamazov. Dostoevsky reminds us that “love in [reality] is a harsh and dreadful thing compared with love in dreams.” There are many different things he means by that, but centrally I think he means that our love for our country requires sacrifice from us. It requires hard things. It also requires us to challenge decisions out of a desire to strengthen and to prod our country in a positive direction. The engagement of parliamentary institutions, the use of parliamentary institutions, is the tool by which we are able to draw on the ideas and experiences not just of members of Parliament but, through them, of all of their constituents. We spend time in our ridings hearing from Canadians about their priorities, their concerns and how they would like to see us respond to the issues of the day. Then we come together here in the central chamber of Canadian democracy to propose constructive ideas, to challenge each other and to hold each other accountable, especially to hold the government accountable, for the decisions we make, all with the goal of positively prodding our country in a constructive direction. Socrates used to describe himself as the gadfly of Athenian democracy. Canadian democracy needs its share of gadflies to— An hon. member: Let’s go for the hemlock. Garnett Genuis: Mr. Speaker, some members across the way say they would like me to meet an end similar to that which Socrates met, but I know that is meant in good humour. He saw himself as a gadfly at the hindquarters of Athenian democracy, which meant he was biting away, annoying the great beast that was Athenian democracy, in hopes of prodding it in a constructive direction. Sometimes during times of national crisis the role of the opposition is challenged. People ask why it does not just agree with everything the government says, but it is out of love for this country and out of loyalty to this country that those who have been directed by the voters into this role of opposition challenge the government in a positive, constructive direction, at least as they see it. Of course, there are going to be different views about what that positive, constructive direction is, but we deeply revere in our tradition this idea of a loyal opposition. This is why I think it would have been the right decision for Parliament to come back early, to identify the many areas that we agree on in terms of Canada’s national interest and also to ask the government questions about its strategy, about its priorities and about the choices and trade-offs it is considering. It is also why we have asked for more information about the nature of negotiations, about the things that were on the table and about the costs associated with countertariffs. When more parliamentarians have that information, when the public has that information, it allows for constructive deliberations about the choices and trade-offs that are involved. It is not because we do not share an ultimate objective. Of course, in many respects we do share an ultimate objective. However, this institution exists so that we can challenge each other based on our shared love for this country. In the face of these challenges, I would encourage the government to recognize the importance of Parliament, to share information with Parliament and to bring these issues to Parliament for a thorough discussion and debate, because this is how and where the best decisions get made. I say this because I think there is some evidence to suggest that the Prime Minister would prefer a kind of corporate governance model to a parliamentary democratic model for shaping the direction of the country. He would prefer to tell parliamentarians in his own caucus, as well as in other parties, to just trust him about the decisions he is making because, as chairman of the board, he is going to make those decisions and why not let him do it. Our parliamentary democracy exists for a reason. It exists because the prodding, directing, encouraging, challenging and accountability are part of the process of getting to good decisions. Parliamentarians are not just individuals putting our own ideas forward. We are reflections of the values, objectives and ideas of our constituents. That is why Parliament matters. That is why it is important. That is why we should resist efforts by the Prime Minister to shift us from a parliamentary democracy model to a model of corporate governance. I would remind the House that parliamentary democracy is also essential during times of crisis. We have a record of many of Winston Churchill’s great interventions in the House of Commons. He felt the importance of coming to the House, even during Britain’s darkest hour. In the face of these challenges, again, this institution is important. Members across the way are eager to hear about how these points relate to Bill C-10. Bill C-10 is actually another example of the government trying to alter the structure and directions of our institutions in ways that move us away from the focus on parliamentary and ministerial accountability. It wants to see this proliferation of external new bodies that do not really have any powers. They would have the power to criticize or commend the actions of the government in relation to modern treaties, but this obscures the fact that the responsibility for implementing these treaties, for acting in accordance with the treaties, is the responsibility of the government and of the ministers charged with implementing them. The House of Commons, as well as its committees, is the place where members of Parliament can and should challenge the government on its actions with respect to our adherence to those treaty obligations. Therefore, the best thing for accountability and for ensuring that action is taken in accordance with these treaties is not the proliferation of external bureaucracy with, frankly, limited tools and a limited capacity to hold the ministers accountable, but for the government to actually take Parliament more seriously, for ministers to provide substantive responses to substantive questions, for ministers to make themselves more available at committee, and for the Prime Minister to address the Canadian House of Commons as soon as possible after a breakdown in negotiations with the United States, not to address the European Parliament before addressing the Canadian Parliament. I think it is great for the Prime Minister to be engaging internationally, but the fact that he addressed these issues at a foreign parliament before addressing them at the Canadian Parliament demonstrates why it would have been so much better if the Canadian Parliament had been convened—”

“I want this bill passed to hold the government accountable for our modern treaties. Parliament itself must hold ministers responsible through questions and debate. A strong Parliament helps us make better decisions and defend Canada, like pushing back against America buying potash from Belarus instead of us.”

“Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the member is a new member in the House. He is not as new as he once was. I do welcome him back. On a serious point to that member, I heard from some of his constituents about a private member’s bill that I put forward in the House. It is Bill C-290, on the theft of religious items, because I know there have been some thefts of mezuzahs. There has been real concern in the Winnipeg Jewish community about that, so I have been meaning to call him about it. I would recommend he have a look at Bill C-290. I hope that the bill, which seeks to address the issue of theft of religious items, is something that could be an area of cross-party co-operation. That definitely is not related to Bill C-10. What I am underlining in this speech is simply that, in the midst of challenging times for our country, in a context where it is important for us to come together and agree on the fundamentals of defending the Canadian national interest, the robust debate that happens in Parliament, the requests for information and the process of holding government ministers accountable are important processes of helping us collectively make better decisions. To love this country is also about loving and working through its existing institutions and recognizing the value of the heritage we have in the establishment of these institutions. As it relates to Bill C-10, it is about saying that the core of accountability is not external to Parliament; it is right here in Parliament. It is the obligation of ministers to uphold our obligations under modern treaties and other treaties. It is to come before the House to defend their actions, to respond to questions from opposition members about them, to do so here within the House and to do so before its committees. We need to have a strong Parliament, a strong Parliament for a strong Canada and a united Canada in the face of various challenges. I was thinking about these challenges just today, looking at the news and comments from the American administration about buying potash from Belarus. This was really striking to me because Belarus is systematically involved in the theft of children from Ukraine. It has been well established by human rights groups that Russia and Belarus are involved in stealing children from Ukraine. This is actually an issue that the first lady of the United States has been quite active in and vocal on, trying to get children who have been stolen from Ukrainian families returned to their families. How in the world did we get to this point where the American administration is talking about buying potash from Belarus instead of trying to restore the relationship with Canada? This is a baffling point to be at. It underlines the need for us to bring the case directly to the American people, to say that we need to have partnerships among like-minded democracies. This ridiculous economic attack on our country makes no sense from a strategic perspective for the United States. Why would we want to buy potash from a regime that is intentionally and systematically stealing children? These are the challenges we face. These are the kinds of challenges that need to be addressed in our Parliament through debate, through discussion, through collaboration and also through disagreements, but to defend the interests of Canada.”

“We all want to support Indigenous rights, but this bill is the wrong way to do it. We should use Parliament to hold the government accountable instead.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I think this makes it clear that we generally all share the same goal when it comes to advancing indigenous rights. However, we disagree on this bill. Conservatives do not believe that this is the ideal mechanism for advancing and defending the rights of indigenous peoples. Instead, we should be focusing on existing mechanisms, namely accountability within the parliamentary context.”

“I do not support this bill. The new commissioner will not have the power to make the government follow treaty agreements. People can already use the courts for that, so this new job is pointless.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is true that the commissioner would not have the power to ensure that the government’s actions are consistent with its obligations. Other mechanisms already exist, such as the courts, for example, where indigenous peoples can demand that the government comply with the agreements. In my view, this is a fundamental problem with Bill C-10. How can the government justify a commissioner position? He will not have the powers needed to guarantee results. What, then, is the purpose of creating this post?”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“This bill takes responsibility away from elected ministers and gives it to an unelected commissioner. I want my colleague to comment on that.”

“Mr. Speaker, in my colleague’s excellent speech, he covered a lot of important information regarding Parliament and the way we act. One of the foundations of our parliamentary system, of course, is ministerial responsibility, whereby a minister is accountable to Parliament for the administration of their department and the decisions it makes. We heard the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations this morning in her opening speech on this bill state that the implementation of modern treaty commitments would not be done through her department; rather, it would be passed on to the commissioner instead. I wonder if my colleague would like to opine on the decision of the Liberal government to say that ministers would not be responsible anymore and unelected commissioners would be.”

“This bill sounds good on the surface, but it actually weakens government accountability. It creates a new commissioner who has no real power, just to take pressure off the minister. This hurts our parliamentary democracy.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is another excellent point from my colleague. This is precisely the issue. Through this bill, which sounds nice on the face of it, “Oh, we are creating this new commissioner,” the structure of the new position is to try to reduce the accountability, the pressure and the demands on the shoulders of the minister, while not really giving the commissioner the power to address the issues that are brought before him or her. It is kind of a diffusion and a weakening of the accountability structures that are supposed to exist within our system. Sometimes with this kind of legislation, when there is a nice-sounding top line, we have to look underneath it and ask, “What is this bill actually doing? What are the effects of it going to be?” As my colleague illustrates, this reflects a kind of preferred corporate governance-oriented model that the Prime Minister wants to apply to this country that in fact weakens the structures of our parliamentary democracy as they are supposed to exist.”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Respect 68 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “a kind of preferred corporate governance-oriented model that the Prime Minister wants to apply to this country that in…”.

  See full analysis →
• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“Conservatives have a better record on signing modern treaties than the Liberals. We do not need a new commissioner because of the government's failures. Ministers should answer for their decisions directly in Parliament and in committees.”

“Mr. Speaker, objectively, Conservatives have a much stronger record when it comes to signing modern treaties in government than the Liberal government does. The numbers are very clear on that. The failure of the government on many fronts has led to pressure for other accountability mechanisms and has led to the government trying to diffuse accountability mechanisms. Again, our view is that the response to these failures of the government should be holding ministers accountable for their decisions and for their failure to make decisions in certain cases, and that the government has a responsibility to expose itself to debate in Parliament and to questions at committee, so that we can work through these crucial issues of the national interest, of nation-building and reconciliation, so that we can do that as the leaders who are responsible here in Parliament for making the decisions that shape the future of our country.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 44 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“I do not support this bill. The government has failed to keep its treaty promises. Instead of fixing the problem itself, it wants to create a new commissioner to write more reports.”

“Mr. Speaker, there is a lot there. Oftentimes what we see with the government is efforts to defer things that it is responsible for to external bodies when the authority and the ability to act is in the hands of ministers. Again, I would say the issue here is whether the government has fulfilled its obligations. There is a lot of consensus that the government has failed in this regard. Rather than fix the fundamental problems, the government is offering to create another commissioner, who is not actually going to have the power to solve these problems but who is going to do studies. It is this constant sort of Liberal industry of wanting to fund external activism or external review rather than actually fixing the core problems that the government has the power and responsibility to fix. That is the issue.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 40 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →
• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →