“I agree that past governments have failed Indigenous people, but this bill is the wrong fix. The new commissioner can only name and shame departments that fail, which will not stop court cases. The Auditor General has pointed out government failures for years, and nothing changed. The government should start doing the work now instead of passing this bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for her speech. I hope she had a very productive summer. As said many times in this debate, we agree with the diagnosis that governments of all stripes over 155-plus years have fallen short on their commitments with indigenous people. What we disagree with is the prescription that the government is coming out with now. We agree with modern treaties. In fact, the Harper government signed six throughout its term from 2006 to 2015. What we have an issue with is that during committee we heard that there would be no guarantee, other than naming and shaming departments that are falling short on their commitments, that there would be fewer court cases. Also, through multiple Auditor General reports showing failures within both departments, ISC and Crown-indigenous relations, we have found years of failure but no correction. In fact, on May 4, 2006, we see, “Overall, Indigenous Services Canada did not effectively implement, monitor, or assess the New Fiscal Relationship initiatives it committed to with First Nation.” That was signed in 2016. This is a recent example. To the minister’s word, let us go from intention to implementation. Why have we not started already?”

“Reports keep showing serious problems with First Nations education, drinking water, and programs. The government has not fixed them, and this bill has no real way to enforce rules. What will the government actually do to get results?”

“Mr. Speaker, we have listened to the minister’s responses over the past few minutes, and we still have not heard any concrete action the government has taken to correct the mistakes shown in multiple auditors general reports. We still have outstanding issues dealing with education, drinking water, governance and programs, and the list goes on. Unfortunately, there has been no correction. This is the issue we raised about Bill C-10. There were no mechanisms to have enforcement, as I said earlier, other than naming and shaming. What actions is the government going to take to get results for indigenous people and, in this case, first nations?”

“I want permission from the House to share my speaking time with another member.”

“Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like unanimous consent to split my time with the member for Langley Township—Fraser Heights.”

“I want to know how this bill will actually fix anything. It creates a commissioner to report on broken treaty promises, but that commissioner cannot force ministers to act. A new office in Ottawa does not build housing, lower the cost of living, or provide drug treatment beds for Indigenous people who are struggling right now.”

“It is an honour to be back in the House after summer. Welcome back, Mr. Speaker. I trust that you had a good summer, and if you will indulge me for a moment, I would like to welcome all of my colleagues back, on both sides of the House. I hope everybody had a great summer and was able to get back to their ridings and talk to a lot of people. I certainly had that opportunity. I heard a lot of stories from people, and unfortunately, people are still struggling. People are struggling with the cost of living and groceries and the high price of rent, gas, clothing and things like that. Safety is another thing I heard about a lot, such as crime, drug use and homelessness, and just struggling with the state of our economy in general. Youth are having such a hard time finding good-paying jobs, and raises are not keeping up with inflation. I am sure all of us heard these stories, including my Liberal colleagues on the other side. My goal when I am here representing the people of Saskatoon West is to save them money and make their lives better. When we look at legislation like Bill C-10, the lens I use is this. Would it help people in that way? Would it save people money? Would it make their lives more affordable and easier? We have a Conservative plan to restore the promise of an affordable, safe and independent Canada that saves people money, saves jobs, keeps people safe, fixes immigration and puts Canada first. I am curious about whether this bill would actually do any of these things. We are now at the third reading of Bill C-10, the commissioner for modern treaty implementation act. At this stage, the question is no longer whether the subject matters; of course it does. The implementation of modern treaties matters. The honour of the Crown matters. The relationship between Canada and indigenous peoples matters. The question is whether the mechanism in this bill would actually produce better results. Bill C-10 would create a new commissioner for modern treaty implementation and a supporting office. The commissioner would review and report on how federal institutions are implementing modern treaties. Supporters argue that an independent officer can shine a light on failures and give treaty partners another means of holding Ottawa accountable. I understand that argument, but when I spoke at second reading, I raised a basic concern that remains today, which is that identifying failure is not the same as correcting failure. Bill C-10 went to committee and was reported back to the House without any amendments, so the core questions remain. If a federal department is behind on a treaty obligation, what changes the next morning? If a minister has failed to meet an obligation, what requires action? If the same failure appears year after year, who is responsible for fixing it? Those are not arguments against accountability. They are questions about how accountability produces action. Bill C-10 is specifically about modern treaties. It is not a general solution to every challenge facing indigenous people in Canada, and we should not pretend that it is. I represent a riding where indigenous issues are not theoretical. According to the 2021 census, nearly 30,000 people in Saskatoon identified as indigenous, so the work we do here in Ottawa should make a real impact on the lives of people in Saskatoon. This debate also takes place at an important time of the year. On September 30, Canadians will mark the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation and Orange Shirt Day. It is a day to honour residential school survivors, their families and their communities. It is also a time to reflect on the lasting consequences of government policy toward indigenous peoples. For me, reconciliation has to include truth, respect and action. Truth means being honest about our history. Respect means listening seriously to indigenous people and respecting treaty commitments. Action means delivering tangible results, such as food and clothing people can afford, better housing, economic opportunities and jobs, access to education and treatment, strong local services and governments that keep their word. That brings me to something I saw first-hand this summer. I travelled to East Hastings Street in Vancouver. I visited Green Road Park in the Halifax region. I do not have to travel across the country to see the same human suffering. I can see the effects of addiction regularly around 20th Street in my own riding of Saskatoon West. What I saw this summer was not an abstract policy debate. I saw people living outside, caught in addiction. I saw communities struggling with disorder, poverty, mental illness and illicit drugs. I saw first-hand how illicit drugs can ravage individuals and destabilize communities. It reinforced for me just how vulnerable some off-reserve indigenous people can be when addiction, homelessness, mental illness and poverty collide. The evidence in my own city should concern every one of us. Saskatoon’s 2025 point-in-time homelessness count identified 1,900 people experiencing homelessness, and of the people surveyed, 83% identified as indigenous. That is a staggering overrepresentation. We see similar vulnerability when we look at the toxic drug crisis in British Columbia. The First Nations Health Authority reported that although first nations people represented approximately 3.4% of British Columbia’s population, they represented 16% of toxic drug poisoning deaths in 2025. Those numbers do not mean that every indigenous person experiencing homelessness suffers from addiction. They do not mean that every person suffering from addiction is homeless. We should not make assumptions like that about anybody or about who is involved. They do demonstrate that indigenous people are dramatically overrepresented among some of the most vulnerable Canadians living at the intersection of these crises. When we speak about reconciliation, that reality has to matter too. There is an important connection here to Bill C-10. Modern treaty implementation is important, but for an indigenous person sleeping outdoors in Saskatoon, Vancouver or Dartmouth, a new office in Ottawa is not a treatment bed. It is not affordable food or stable housing. It is not a counsellor or a job. It is difficult for me to see how a new bureaucracy in Ottawa would help put food on the table in Saskatoon or save an indigenous family money when they pay their rent. We must honour treaty commitments, and we must respond to the urgent human needs directly in front of us. My approach to addiction policy is that it should ultimately be oriented toward recovery. That does not mean pretending addiction is simple, because it is not. People have unique needs, and recovery can take time. Relapse can happen, but surely the goal should be to help people regain control of their lives and, wherever possible, escape destructive addiction. That is why the Conservatives have put forward proposals centred on treatment and recovery. Last election, the Conservative Party proposed federal funding to create 50,000 treatment opportunities for Canadians seeking recovery from addiction. Conservative MPs have also put legislation before Parliament aimed at making treatment a more meaningful part of the justice system. We introduced Bill C-231, which would give youth justice courts additional options to connect young people with problematic substance use treatment. We introduced Bill C-240, the offender rehabilitation act. That bill proposes additional rehabilitation and addiction treatment measures within the criminal justice and corrections systems. These proposals reflect an important distinction. We should distinguish between the person trapped in addiction and the criminal organization or trafficker who profits from that addiction. A person in the grip of addiction needs a path toward recovery. A dealer or organized criminal network deliberately trafficking fentanyl presents a different problem, requiring law enforcement and criminal accountability. Those are different situations, and government policy should be capable of recognizing the difference. It is good to see a shift to recovery-oriented solutions. That can mean intervention, when someone is in immediate danger, or detox, treatment and long-term recovery supports. I have seen examples of that recovery-oriented thinking right at home. The Saskatoon Tribal Council implemented a program that meets people on the streets and in encampments. The program is called Sawēyihtotān, which is a Cree word that means “to bless each other”. Staff provide wellness checks, food and cultural supports. They advocate for detox beds. They connect people with emergency shelters. The program provides pathways toward transitional and supportive sober housing. That is worth paying attention to. It does not write people off. It meets people where they are. Crucially, it also helps to move them somewhere better. To me, that is compassion with a destination. That same principle should inform how we think about reconciliation. The government should not measure success by how many structures it creates, how many reports it publishes or how much process it generates. We should measure whether people are actually better off. Are treaty commitments being fulfilled? Are people finding housing? Are young people finding opportunities? Are people trapped in addiction getting access to treatment? Are communities becoming safer? Are families being reunited? Those are outcomes Canadians can understand. The commissioner created by Bill C-10 may provide useful information. Reviews and performance audits may help Parliament identify where treaty implementation is failing, but the commissioner would not replace ministers. The commissioner would not implement treaties. The commissioner would not build housing, operate treatment centres or deliver the services that people depend on. Those responsibilities would remain with government and the institutions that already possess the authority to act. Were the commissioner to identify a problem, the responsible minister should have to answer plainly. What is the problem? Who is responsible? What is being done? When will it be fixed? That is meaningful accountability. As September 30 approaches, we should remember that reconciliation is not something Parliament completes by passing one bill. It is a continuing responsibility. It is found in whether treaty promises are honoured and whether governments listen. It is found in what happens on the ground, in places like 20th Street in Saskatoon West and in communities right across the country, where people are trying, every day, to build safer, healthier and more hopeful lives. That is a standard I will continue to apply to Bill C-10 and to the broader work of reconciliation.”

“I do not support this bill. It just creates more reports and bureaucracy instead of fixing problems. The Auditor General has already pointed out the issues, and the government needs to take action to fix them.”

“Mr. Speaker, our position is very simple. We want action. That is the bottom line. My concern with the legislation is that it creates bureaucracy, investigations, reports and a whole lot of time spent looking into things. It does not solve problems. The Auditor General has already identified many problems that exist in Canada’s system, in failures of the government and of the system we have now, and yet there has been no action by the government to actually fix those things. Our position is very simple. We want to see action.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The government talks a lot and makes big promises, but it does not take real action. Adding more government offices slows down action instead of helping people. We want real action, not more bureaucracy.”

“Mr. Speaker, what the member has highlighted is something that we see over and over again from the government, and that is a whole lot of talk and a whole lot of lack of action. We could look at anything, including the youth jobs crisis, inflation, cost of living issues, the cost of rent and groceries, or our immigration system. There are so many different things we could look at. Time and time again we see a big fancy speech, a big promise and a big commitment to do this and this, but when we look for the action, the changes, the things that impact people on a daily basis, like boil water advisories, these kinds of things have not been dealt with by the government. Once again, we want to see some action. That is why it is difficult for us to get excited about creating more bureaucracy, because we know that bureaucracy impedes action. We want to see action.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 44 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 →

“If the federal government just kept its treaty promises, would we even need this new commissioner?”

“Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for my colleague. If the federal government simply upheld and met its treaty obligations, would this position be necessary at all?”

“I do not support this bill. The government is creating a new commissioner instead of actually taking action and solving problems for Indigenous people.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is a brilliant way to pose the question. Of course, if the government was doing what it needed to, this commissioner would not be needed. What my colleague’s question does is highlight the importance, again, of action and of actually solving problems. Oftentimes, positions like this bureaucratic commissioner are ways for the government to avoid having to deal with an actual problem. That is what we have seen time and time again. One hundred per cent, if the government was actually doing what it needed to do, we would not need to be going down this road. We would have solved problems for indigenous people in Canada many days ago.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I do not want this bill to pass. We need to settle land claims and make new treaties, but this bill only creates another office and commissioner. The Auditor General already checks on treaties, and the government just ignores those reports. We need real action, not more bureaucracy.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is great to be back in the House of Commons after a very busy summer at home in my riding of Langley Township—Fraser Heights and throughout British Columbia. Like every member of the House, I am sure, I heard from many Canadians about their concerns about the state of Canada’s economy, so I would like to start with this: Conservatives are focused on saving Canadians money. Liberals are all talk and no results. Liberals are costing Canadians more. They are out of touch, and Canadians are out of money. The Conservative plan, on the other hand, restores the promise of an affordable, safe and independent Canada. It will save people money. It will save Canadian jobs. It will keep people safe. It will fix immigration, and it will put Canada first, always. As I was speaking with people throughout British Columbia, I also heard deep concerns about the economic uncertainty that has arisen under the Cowichan Tribes decision, which, for the first time in Canadian history, declared aboriginal title over fee simple lands. Somehow those two competing interests have to live with each other, and that brings me to the topic of the day: Bill C-10, an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation. Let me start with this. Conservatives agree with the importance of modern treaties. Treaties are the way forward for Canada. Treaties create certainty. Treaties provide clarity. Treaties are better than endless litigation. Well-negotiated treaties can reconcile indigenous rights, support economic development and provide stable foundations for future generations. Canada continues to grapple with one of the unfinished chapters of Confederation, unresolved indigenous land claims, and nowhere is this more true than in British Columbia, my home province. This summer, as chair of the Conservative Party task force on property rights, I travelled around British Columbia with colleagues, and we met with realtors, bankers, appraisers, ranchers, builders, business owners, indigenous leaders and ordinary Canadian homeowners. I wanted to hear their concerns following the British Columbia Supreme Court decision in the Cowichan Tribes case. As I said, for the first time in Canadian history, aboriginal title has now been declared over privately held lands. The judge in that court case said that the indefeasible title provisions of the British Columbia Land Title Act do not apply to aboriginal title when it is declared over private lands. This is a seismic shift in thinking about private ownership, about private lands. This goes to the very foundation of our modern western economy. Whether one disagrees or agrees with the legal reasoning in that decision, there is no disputing that it has generated significant uncertainty across many sectors in Canada’s economy. We heard concerns about mortgage lending and financing. We heard concerns about real estate valuation and investment. We heard concerns about investment decisions. We heard concerns about municipal tax bases and economic development. One real estate property appraiser described the situation this way: He said that, historically, appraisers could rely on the indefeasibility provisions of the land title office to confirm the ownership and determine exactly what interest was being valued. However, after the Cowichan decision, appraisal firms are increasingly inserting disclaimers related to aboriginal title claims. They are putting it right into their report, saying that they assume there are no aboriginal title claims on the property. Well, that goes to the value of the property and undermines certainty. It undermines confidence in our economy. Certainty matters. People buying homes need certainty. Businesses making investment decisions need certainty. Indigenous communities seeking economic development and opportunities also require certainty. Municipalities planning for the future need certainty. As one business leader at one of our round table meetings put it, if we have no certainty in Canada, we have no Canada. I would agree with that. We need to know where we are, going forward. One of our meetings was in Victoria, British Columbia. My colleagues and I met with leaders from the Cowichan tribes, the plaintiffs in the litigation. We had a great meeting. We certainly did not agree on everything, but we agreed on one very important point: The treaty-making process in British Columbia has not adequately resolved these questions for either indigenous or non-indigenous communities. One of the chiefs made an observation that has stayed with me. She described the treaty-making process and the settlement of land claims as the unfinished work of Canada’s Confederation, and I agree with that. When British Columbia entered Confederation in 1871, Canada promised to connect the province to the rest of the country with a transcontinental railroad. As settlement expanded westward through Ontario and the Prairies, the federal government negotiated what we call today the numbered treaties, covering most of Ontario, all of the provinces, and even the northeastern section of British Columbia. These treaties facilitated settlement, established a relationship with indigenous communities, provided for certainty as the country grew, and facilitated development and even the railroad. However, when Canada reached the Rocky Mountains, the process largely stopped. Apart from the Douglas treaties in the southern part of Vancouver Island around Victoria and Treaty 8 in the northeast, as I already mentioned, most of British Columbia was left outside the treaty system. The result is that British Columbia remains unique in Canada. Most of the province was never covered by historic treaties. This unresolved reality has shaped decades of litigation and important court cases, all of them originating in my home province: from the Calder decision to the Delgamuukw decision, the Tsilhqot’in decision and most recently the Cowichan decision. Today, most of British Columbia’s 204 identified first nations have unresolved claims. There are similar unresolved claims in other parts of Canada as well, such as in the Ottawa Valley, in the Maritimes and in some parts of Quebec, but British Columbia stands out as having a real lack of modern treaties. That is why we say modern treaties are so important. We support them. Negotiated treaties are better than litigation. Clear treaties are better than uncertainty. Final settlements are better than decades of court battles. In fact, many of the constituents I heard from this summer reinforce that very point. The answer to uncertainty is not more uncertainty. The answer is clearer agreements: treaties that define rights, responsibilities and expectations. That brings me to the topic of the day, Bill C-10. Many Canadians hearing about this legislation might reasonably assume that it is designed to accelerate treaty negotiations, settle outstanding claims or help complete the unfinished work of treaty making in Canada. Unfortunately, that is not what the bill would do. Bill C-10 would primarily create a new commissioner and a new institution to oversee the implementation of existing treaties. That work was already being done very effectively by the Office of the Auditor General, but the Liberal government simply chose to ignore those reports. How would this be different with the new treaty commissioner? The problem is not that Canada is suffering from a shortage of commissioners. It is suffering from a shortage of action and results. The Liberals’ response to many problems is to create a new office, another agency, another commissioner or another layer of bureaucracy. Permits are being held up, so they create a Major Projects Office. Housing is unaffordable, so they create another office, another bureaucracy for housing that is going to overlook the previous commissions that were not doing their job. If treaty implementation is falling behind, the Liberals say to create another commission. I am saying that the appearance of action is not action itself. We already have the Auditor General’s office for that work. The answer is to do the work. Reconciliation cannot be measured by how many commissions there are. It must be measured by outcomes. Canada needs a serious plan to complete the unfinished work of reconciliation and treaty making. Reconciliation and certainty are not competing goals; they are complementary goals. Indeed, the best treaties in history have advanced both. Unfortunately, Bill C-10 would do very little. We do not need more commissions. We need action.”

• Echo ×13

  A repeated line

  “The Liberals are all talk and no results.”

  Said 13 times by 12 members since September 21.

  Every time it was said →

“My party supports modern treaties. Treaties are better than fighting in court. But the government has mismanaged both court cases and treaties, as the Auditor General has repeatedly pointed out. The Liberals should fix these problems and do the work properly.”

“Mr. Speaker, we are absolutely supporting the modern treaty process. We underline how important it is. We underline that treaties are better than endless litigation, which we are seeing in British Columbia. I would just add that the government has mismanaged the litigation file seriously, just as it was mismanaging the treaty implementation. The Auditor General has reported on it numerous times. Why do the Liberals not just fill the deficiencies, roll up their sleeves and get the job done?”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“How will the Cowichan court decision affect other parts of Canada and our economy? Will it make life more affordable for Canadians?”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned the Cowichan decision. My question is this: How will that decision potentially impact other areas in Canada, and what are the economic consequences of that? Will life become more affordable for Canadians as a consequence?”

“Much of British Columbia does not have treaties, and neither do other parts of Canada. Court battles over land rights create uncertainty that hurts our economy. We need to resolve this problem.”

“Mr. Speaker, British Columbia is unique in that most of the territory is not covered by treaties, unlike Ontario, for example. However, there are areas, including my colleague’s riding, where treaties have not been negotiated, so this is a Canada-wide problem. The uncertainty arising out of the litigation around property rights is undermining Canadians’ confidence in one of the pillars of our economy: private property rights. It must be resolved.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 47 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I do not want this bill. We do not need a new commissioner, because the Auditor General already does this work. The government should just do the work to put these treaties into place instead of making another office.”

“Mr. Speaker, indeed there are a lot of gaps in Bill C-10. As a matter of fact, we are saying that the commissioner is not necessary. It would just be another layer of bureaucracy. We already have the Auditor General’s office, which has been reporting on government deficiencies in implementing the modern treaties, but rather than admit that it has mismanaged the file, in typical Liberal fashion the government has just made another announcement about another organization that is finally going to solve the problems. I remain unconvinced that this is going to happen. What we need is for the government to roll up its sleeves, get the job done and get it done now.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“A Liberal member once said a minister is not responsible for her department. Now this government wants to hand its duties to an outside commissioner. I want the member to explain this lack of accountability.”

“Mr. Speaker, we were looking at an issue in public accounts around some indigenous services, and one of the Liberal members stated that the minister is not responsible for her department. Now we see that the government wants to turn further accountability over to an outside commissioner. I wonder if the member could comment on the government’s lack of accountability.”

“After 11 years, the Liberals still do not get the job done. They make announcements and take photos instead of finishing treaty negotiations. I want them to do the work and complete these treaties.”

“Mr. Speaker, indeed, that is what we see with Liberal government throughout its now 11 years of history. There is a lack of accountability, a lack of getting the job done, more announcements, more photo ops and more of the Liberals’ trying to convince Canadians that they are doing the job, but they are not. We just need them to get the job done and get the treaties negotiated.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 42 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 →

“I want to ask the member about First Nations self-determination. How far does she think that goes? Does it mean a First Nation could become its own country?”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech. We have had the pleasure of sitting together for 11 years already. I am also very proud that the name of my riding includes an indigenous name: Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk. I listened very carefully to the remarks of my colleague, who is always well informed and always in touch with the constituents she represents in the House. She mentioned that she agrees with the principle of first nations self-determination. I would like to hear her point of view on this in more detail. How far could this go? Would that mean a first nation could become a self-governing country?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 36 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 →

“This bill only names and shames departments that break their promises to Indigenous peoples. It will not stop court cases, and it has no real power to punish anyone. I want to know if the member opposite wants to add real consequences to hold departments accountable.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member from the Bloc for her work on this file and at the indigenous and northern affairs committee. It has been a pleasure working with that individual on this piece of legislation. As she would have heard in the committee process, this piece of legislation is not expected to stop the number of court cases being brought before the government right now. It is a mechanism, basically, to name and shame government departments that are not living up to their word. We agree on this side of the House that governments of all stripes over many years have not lived up to their word with indigenous peoples, but yet we do not see in this piece of legislation a mechanism that has some kind of accountability when these failures do happen. The Auditor General has outlined report after report about failures within the department, but nothing seems to change. Would the member opposite like to see some kind of teeth in this legislation that could actually hold departments accountable?”

“Governments have failed Indigenous peoples for years. Reports show this over and over. Experts say this bill has no real power to fix these failures. I want the government to explain how it will actually hold departments accountable.”

“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives on this side of the House agree with the diagnosis that governments of all stripes have failed indigenous peoples for way too many years. Even in the member’s speech, he listed a number of areas that the government is working on. For all of those areas the member outlined in his speech, the Auditor General has released report after report on the continuous failures within various government departments when it comes to indigenous peoples. Given this legislation, which was commented on at committee as having no teeth to actually enforce ongoing failures, what mechanisms does the government have in place to ensure accountability?”

“The government ignores reports about its failures, and this bill lets the minister pass the blame to a commissioner. I want to know if my colleague agrees that the government is just dodging responsibility.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg Centre gave a passionate speech that had a lot of great points. We do not necessarily agree on everything, but I certainly appreciate everything she said today. One of the issues I have with this bill is that we have seen a lack of accountability from the government. Report after report from the Auditor General has been ignored by the government. The government said earlier that it is not the minister who is responsible for implementing the modern treaty commitments, but this commissioner. I wonder what my colleague thinks about the government taking accountability and responsibility away from the minister and pushing them onto the commissioner instead of taking responsibility itself.”

“I do not want this bill to pass. We do not need another government office to write reports about broken treaty promises. The Auditor General already does that. We need to hold the ministers and departments responsible instead of adding more bureaucracy.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to split my time with the member for Edmonton Northwest. At second reading, Conservatives raised a fundamental question about Bill C-10 and the government’s proposal to create a new commissioner for modern treaty implementation. The question was not whether Canada must honour its treaty obligations. Of course it must; there is no question there. It is not whether the federal government should be accountable to indigenous peoples when it fails to meet the commitments it has made. Of course it should. The question is actually much simpler: Will creating another federal office actually fix the failures of the last 100-plus years? The Conservative position throughout the consideration of this legislation has been that Canada’s problem is not a shortage of reports, commissioners, bureaucracies or oversight mechanisms. It is a shortage of accountability for the people already responsible for negotiating and implementing Canada’s treaties. That distinction is important. Bill C-10 would establish an independent commissioner and office to audit, review and report on federal institutions, ministerial responsibility, measurable implementation requirements, parliamentary oversight and consequences when departments fail to fulfill treaty obligations. After this bill has proceeded through Parliament, that fundamental concern is still on the table. The Office of the Auditor General already examines treaty negotiations, modern treaty implementation, self-government agreements and treaty land entitlements. Its work in this field stretches back decades. The federal government has also created the modern treaty implementation office, the assessment of modern treaty implementation process, the performance management framework, the modern treaty management environment, the deputy minister’s oversight committee and the reconciliation secretariat. The argument Conservatives are making and have been making this whole time is not that nobody is watching. It is that too few people are being held responsible. Events outside this chamber since legislation was first debated make that question even more important. We should be looking at the actual results. I know that government members have said a few times in their speeches that now is the time to have results. Well, I will give one example, from May 4, 2026. This is from an Auditor General’s report, the first one on the page: Overall, Indigenous Services Canada did not effectively implement, monitor, or assess the New Fiscal Relationship initiatives it committed to with First Nations. The Government of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations agreed in 2016 [which is pretty recent] to establish the initiatives to advance First Nations’ right to self-determination and support efforts to close persistent socio‑economic gaps between First Nations and other Canadians. This agreement was signed between the government and the AFN. We have had 10 years and an Auditor General’s report that says nothing has been done and that they are not being held accountable. The government is not seeing changes at its own end. We have all these departments already looking into what the government is doing wrong. We have report after report. We just have to go to the Auditor General’s website to see there is a whole slew of reports going back decades noting where the government and governments before it have been failing, yet nothing is changing within the departmental structure. All that is changing is that we are adding one more department after another, with more reports and more reports. We are just piling them on, but no one is being held accountable. It was even said at committee when we studied this bill that Bill C-10 is basically a name and shame bill. We see that in the Auditor General’s reports when the Auditor General puts forward analyses on different governments, programs and departments. Not only that, but Indigenous Services Canada, which I mentioned in the story just a few moments ago, has over 8,000 bureaucrats right now. This government department is relatively new, but its whole mandate is to put itself out of business, and it is going in the complete wrong direction. If it is going to put itself out of business, we need to see more power given to indigenous communities, less power controlled in Ottawa and less reliance on nations coming to Ottawa to seek more money for various programs. It is not supposed to work that way. The government says it is working on it. The government says this is its vision. We heard that from the former prime minister. It somewhat continues today but it is just getting bigger. It is getting bigger and more bloated and we do not have any accountability from the government bureaucracies themselves. Why is that happening? That is the fundamental question. That is what we should be asking each other today, not whether we need another department to name and shame for one day. Maybe it circulates in the media for a day or two, longer if a Conservative is in power, and then we look at it and nothing really changes. That is the problem. The Auditor General is an officer of Parliament. We are going to create another officer of Parliament to create another report. See how this goes? See what happens? It is just more circular action. Nothing actually changes. We do not actually see any measurable changes for indigenous communities. That is the whole problem. I would have loved to ask the member for Winnipeg North, who was talking about accountability, a question, if I had had the opportunity when he was talking about that. Let us use the Auditor General’s report that I had just talked about a few seconds ago. Given that there has been 10 years of failure, who has been held accountable? Has anything changed within the department? Clearly, nothing has changed. They had 10 years to work on that new fiscal agreement. It was signed by the government. The government is still here. Nothing has changed. We have another report that says it has not. What is actually changing? Nothing is actually changing. This is the whole problem. The commissioner for modern treaty implementation cannot negotiate a good treaty. That is for the government to do. The commissioner cannot substitute for the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations. A commissioner cannot substitute for the Minister of Justice. A commissioner certainly cannot be a substitute for Parliament. The question for Parliament, because nobody is being held responsible when things go wrong, and clearly there is a lot of that, is how Parliament can better hold governments to account. We cannot do that because there is no accountability within the departmental structure. That is the whole problem. I look at the Auditor General’s website. There are failures in education, in clean drinking water, in emergency response and the list goes on and on. Most of the reports that I am looking at on the Auditor General’s website are just follow-ups from previous reports. There is very little action. If we are saying that we want Ottawa, which has created the problem in the first place, to fix the problem, and if it is not doing that, we need to name and shame for a day, but nothing actually improves. Again, we are going in a circle. Nothing is changing. By creating another office with another bureaucracy, with more and more reports and staff and offices, we are not actually fixing the problem. Conservatives, on this side of the House, agree with the diagnosis. There has been a massive problem. What we disagree with is the prescription the government has presented to us today, and that is Bill C-10, which would create yet another level of bureaucracy but little to no 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 →