“Canada must keep its promises in modern treaties. Indigenous groups have waited years for this. I support having a treaty commissioner, but this bill is too weak. It does not force the government to act on what the commissioner finds. We need to make this bill stronger so the government actually does the work.”

“Mr. Speaker, the majority of what I have to say was said before question period, but I would be remiss if I did not point out that there were a number of important indigenous organizations that did a lot of work on the treaty commission suggestion to the government and its work on Bill C-10. The Land Claims Agreement Coalition is one. There were many, many more. We understand that the treaty partners have waited years for governments to fulfill the obligations that Canada freely undertook. We understand that a signed treaty cannot become a document that governments celebrate with ceremony and then neglect afterward. Canada must keep its word. The disagreement, again, is therefore not over whether accountability is necessary. We want to see accountability. We do not believe this piece of legislation lives up to that. We do not believe that there will be a meaningful response from the government to any information that comes out of the treaty commissioner. We have seen no action on the Auditor General’s reports, for report after report. We want to see action. We support the minister’s word when she says they want intention rather than implementation. Let us see that. Let us give the bill some teeth. Let us have the government finish up its work.”

“Governments have failed to keep their promises to Indigenous peoples for decades. The Auditor General already reports on this, and showed that the government broke its word on a 2016 agreement. The government needs to be held accountable for the deals it signs.”

“Madam Speaker, it is interesting because we get the frustration indigenous peoples have with government in general, and in this case, the government opposite. We actually acknowledge that governments of all stripes over decades have failed to live up to their word, and that is the issue. The member opposite knows that the Auditor General is an officer of Parliament. She, at this point, reports to Parliament. On May 4, 2026, the Auditor General produced yet another report showing that Indigenous Services Canada is not living up to its word to implement, monitor and assess a new fiscal relationship with indigenous peoples. This was signed in 2016 and is only 10 years old, but the Liberals have not done anything. If they are not going to live up to their word after they have signed on the dotted line, when are we going to see some accountability?”

“I do not support this bill. It is too weak to fix how the government handles treaties. It only creates reports that criticize departments without any real consequences, which the Auditor General already does. It could also lead to more court cases instead of reconciliation.”

“Madam Speaker, I hope the member opposite had a restful summer. It is always good to see our Bloc friends back in the House holding the government to account. I do agree that this piece of legislation does not have the teeth necessary to see changes within the way government deals with such things as modern treaties. We have pointed it out time and time again. In fact, in the committee process, it came out that this piece of legislation would produce a report that would name and shame a government department not living up to its word. The Auditor General already does that, but after that, there is still that lingering question of what actually happens. Does a government department get restructured? Does anyone lose their job? Are we seeing consequences in any meaningful form? The answer is no. What we found out at committee is that this might actually cause more court cases, and that is the opposite of what the government should be doing. That is not reconciliation.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Canada has failed to be a true partner with treaty First Nations for years. This bill just creates another costly government office that the government does not even have to listen to. Does the member agree?”

“Madam Speaker, I was a treaty chairman for eight years for my band. In all those years I was there, and even after my time being an MLA, these issues kept coming up in B.C. Given the chaos in B.C. for the last 10 years or 15 years, Canada has blown an opportunity to have a true partnership with the first nations that signed treaties. From what we understand, the government is going to create another bureaucratic body that is going to cost tens of millions of dollars, with no obligation to follow up on any of the reports coming out of this new office. Am I correct?”

“I do not want this bill to pass. We do not need a new commissioner or a new office to write more reports about modern treaties. The government already has the treaties, past reports, and its own rules telling it what to do. It just needs to follow through on its promises and work with First Nations.”

“Madam Speaker, it is good to be back in Ottawa to represent the good people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley. As mentioned earlier, I was a first nations leader. I was a councillor for eight years and a chief councillor for six years, and then I moved on to be an MLA. I am very proud to say that I am representing Skeena—Bulkley Valley in the House today. During those eight years, I was the treaty chairman, which means that I was in charge of day-to-day negotiations for my band. We were at stage four, by the way. We were nowhere close to signing a treaty. In fact, we pulled ourselves out of treaty negotiations because economic development agreements were actually outpacing treaty negotiations at the time. However, all the issues we talked about in terms of treaty implementation are still there today. During the discussion we had at the summit in Vancouver, we talked about Canada’s failure to show up to the table to implement modern day treaties. When I became an MLA, I was surprised to hear that all the reports over the last 15 to 20 years, all the letters, all the lobbying, had made their way to Ottawa but nothing was done. I was surprised to hear that an independent body such as the Auditor General actually reported to the House annually on the failure of the government to implement modern day treaties. As my work as an MP has unfolded, it has come out that those reports had no teeth to them. They had no backbone. There was no reason for the government to follow the Auditor General’s report to follow up on implementing what should be a priority in B.C., if not in Canada. We are looking at the chaos in B.C. right now. We have heard the debate in the B.C. legislature. We have heard the debate in the House of Commons in Ottawa, talking about the need for certainty. We need the economy to be back on track. After 10 years of stifling the economy, the priority now is to get the economy moving, but for that we need first nations participation, as cited in the Haida court case of 2004 that laid out the framework on how to reconcile aboriginal rights and title with Crown statutory decision-making. It was working. From 2004 to 2017, it was working on a few points. Number one is that we had to resolve rights and title interests. On specific projects, that was working out okay. It was not in all cases, of course, but in most cases, especially if we are talking about the LNG development in Kitimat and especially if we are talking about the pipeline from Alberta to Vancouver, the Trans Mountain pipeline, and countless mining agreements. The majority of these agreements were done with first nations that had asserted aboriginal rights and title, not defined title such as we are talking about here today. By defined title, I mean there is a first nation that sat down and said, “We want to put down for the record our rights and title, and we want to coexist in the economy of Canada today and the society of today. We’re going to reconcile our interests under the laws of Canada and B.C., under the regulations of Canada and B.C.” That is essentially what a treaty is. When we talk about Bill C-10, through which the government wants to create a commissioner for modern day treaty implementation, again it is just another announcement. It would be millions of dollars or more going towards a title, an office, not only to compile the list of complaints over the last 20 years but also to possibly amend those complaints with the complaints of today, which are basically the same complaints as the last 20 years. The last time I got up to speak to this, I told the House that everything is already there for the government to co-operate and partner with treaty first nations. Read the treaty. It talks about the Crown’s obligations, department by department, on how to implement the treaty. More than ever before, the reason for that is what we talk about here every day, whether we are talking about tariffs, the economy or the cost of living. It is there. The government just needs to read the treaty and enforce it. The accountability is not only for the government, but every ministry under the government has an obligation to look at that treaty and find out exactly what their duties are to breathe life into it. The first nations are there. They want co-operation. They want to help build Canada. The complaint is that Canada just does not want to implement it. If the government does not want to read the treaty and understand its own obligations under the treaty, then it should look to its own website. There is a comprehensive set of guidelines and principles on the government website that talk about how to implement modern day treaties. It is already there. The government wrote it and amended it over the years. Just one publication is the “Guide for Federal Implementers of Comprehensive Land Claims and Self-Government Agreements”. It is on the Canadian government website. It has an executive summary and eight different clauses talking about treaty implementation. It gives the background of how we came to these treaties in the first place, coming from comprehensive land claims agreements and self-government agreements to modern day treaties in B.C. It talks about how to implement the treaties, the phases of implementation, how to plan for implementation, the committees that are set up for implementation, the implementing bodies and the obligations of all the parties. It also includes funding obligations, which we all know continue from Ottawa after a first nation signs a treaty. It is there. It talks about the roles and responsibilities of federal implementers. It talks about the principles of federal collaboration. The government does not need a new treaty commissioner to tell it its own principles of collaborating with first nations treaties. This is already written in its own document. If the Auditor General already told government annually, in their reports, how the government is failing at implementation, what good would a multi-million-dollar new office and budget do? There are also federal structures and processes, coordination, decision-making, information sharing, monitoring and reporting. There are annexes supporting these principles under treaty. It is a shame if government is just buying more time so more reports and more summaries can be presented to the House and shelved. The plan is there. The treaty is there. The government has its own guides to follow. It has the recommendations of the Auditor General. I assume the government’s lead bureaucrats are telling it about the failures and how to fix them. More than ever, we need action, not another office, not another title and not more money being spent. The treaty first nations are there. They want to assist in building Canada. They want to do everything they can to make this economy stronger. The only one missing is the federal government. If the government does truly believe that we can build Canada strong, then it should get back to some of the fundamental partners that can help it, the first nations that have signed modern day treaties.”

“We have had these processes for 20 years and they discuss the same things without results. Adding more processes will not help. The federal government is the only group failing to carry out these treaties.”

“Madam Speaker, I would say to the member that I would love to get up in front of these communities and give them the exact same speech I just gave right now. There are too many processes being put in place right now that have been in place for 20 years and talk about the same exact thing. The only people who are failing to implement it are the members of the federal government.”

“We already have ways to do this. This bill is a waste of time. The government just needs to keep the promises it made in the treaties years ago.”

“Madam Speaker, there are so many processes put in place already to achieve the exact same goal. I think first nations should be made well aware of the time wasted talking about this, when really the simple answer is that the government should have actually fulfilled its obligations when it signed the treaties five years, 10 years or 15 years ago. That was the number one promise made by the government.”

“We should not create a new office to oversee modern treaties. The government should just answer to Parliament instead of building another bureaucracy.”

“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for all the work he has done over the years supporting reconciliation and economic development for indigenous peoples. There is a certain irony in the approach of the government, because we have a Prime Minister who has not shown much respect for Parliament. He ignored our calls to reconvene Parliament to discuss the crisis involving Canada-U.S. relations. He has not been forthcoming with Parliament about various issues. However, we have a bill where he is proposing an additional separate bureaucracy that would oversee the government’s action in the context of modern treaties. It strikes me that the government could and should respect the accountability mechanisms we already have in place. It could be more engaged with the work of Parliament. It could be more present in Parliament and more willing to provide information to Parliament about what it is doing as it relates to modern treaties and also about a broad range of other domains. I wonder what my colleague thinks about this: instead of the government’s creating an additional separate bureaucracy, its actually being more engaged with and more forthcoming with the mechanisms and institutions we already have that are designed to promote accountability.”

“We do not need another report after 20 years of reports saying the same thing. First Nations need real results and building, not more announcements. The government should just keep its treaty promises.”

“Madam Speaker, that is exactly it. Everybody is failing to talk about the outcomes. Do we really need another report after 20 years of reports saying the exact same thing? If there is no accountability and no follow-up, then what are we getting in return? It is crucial now that Canada start building. Everybody agrees with that, but the partners on the ground are actually begging and screaming for something. I think those first nations should come here to see the other side of this and see how this place works, because the announcements are really not doing anybody any good, whether we are talking about first nations or non-first nations. I think this is a great time for government to actually fulfill its obligations and authority, and to fulfill the promises of the treaty.”

“I oppose this bill because it is just an announcement with no real substance. Instead, we should look at the Auditor General's past recommendations to hold the government accountable for its failures.”

“Madam Speaker, that is a great question. In fact, I think we should start with all the Auditor General’s recommendations, put them back on the floor, ask for accountability and measures, and show the Canadian public how the government is failing. The problem with the bill is that it is just an announcement. It has no substance, so let us start back 20 years when the complaint—”

“We do not need this bill. We already have the Auditor General to check on the government. The government already ignores those reports, like on clean water, so a new commissioner will not change anything.”

“Madam Speaker, there are already accountability measures and mechanisms within this House. The Auditor General, for example, puts out multiple reports. In 2021, there was a report on the shortcomings and missed promises when it came to water legislation. Only years later, on something so fundamental to human life, as everybody needs water, are the Liberals acting on legislation they promised a long time ago. They are still fighting in courts on this issue too. What would be different with a new commissioner’s office in comparison to how the Liberals have failed to live up to reports the Auditor General cites against the government?”