Rhonda Kirkland
Oshawa, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“I find the Liberal government's response, both in committee and in the House, to be very arrogant and dismissive of the process that we have in the House for a reason.”
“Conservatives have been clear from the beginning: We support giving police the tools they need to pursue terrorists, child predators, organized crime networks and cybercriminals. With proper judicial authorization, law enforcement should be able to obtain lawful access to necessary and relevant evidence when investigating serious crimes.”
“13, to cut off debate and ram the bill through committee and through Parliament, moved by the Liberal public safety minister and the Liberal government, is an admission that the bill is so flawed that it cannot possibly withstand debate and scrutiny. I think the Liberals are afraid to answer the questions.”
“Our amendment to the motion even is reasonable: to split the bill, pass what we can agree on and do this right. Canadians expect us to do our homework, to read the fine print and to identify problems before legislation becomes law, not after. Most of all, Canadians expect Parliament to function as more than a government approval machine.”
“Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate the work ethic of my friend and colleague who sits with me on the public safety committee and the amount that she has studied this bill. We studied it in depth, and I appreciate her being thankful for all the staff who have done this work with us as well.”
“Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Richmond Centre—Marpole . I have been a member for just over a year, 12 or 14 months, and I think I am more disappointed this week than I have been in my entire time in the House.”
The complete record
Every one of 436 lines we hold for Rhonda Kirkland, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 9.
“Mr. Speaker, we could do what the Liberals are doing right now, which is sitting back, doing nothing and managing the decline that is happening. What we can do, instead of simply offering supports, new job training and all these things to manage this decline, is not sit on our laurels. We can present a plan. We can try to negotiate. Something that Unifor members across this country understand is negotiating and getting a deal. I believe Canadians can get that. I believe we can get it and the United States can be happy with it as well.”
“Oshawa has a proud tradition of producing automotive excellence built by generations of skilled men and women who believe that if something is made in Canada, it should be made to compete with the best in the world. That same standard must guide our Canadian auto industry today and into the future as we fight to protect jobs, grow production and restore pride, because R.S. McLaughlin, the founder of General Motors of Canada, believed this: “One grade only, and that the best”.”
“It is also about sovereignty, by combining Canadian excellence with Canadian independence. Finally, we would stand firm against unfair trade. We would work with our North American partners to push back against unfair practices. We would fight for what Canadian workers most need: tariff-free access to the United States market. Some will say this plan is too ambitious, but what is truly unrealistic is believing that doing nothing and not negotiating with the U.S. administration, despite promising to negotiate a trade deal with the United States by July 21 of last year, will somehow make things better. Right now, Canadians buy about 1.9 million vehicles every year, but we build only 1.2 million vehicles. Our plan is about closing that gap, rebuilding what we once had and getting back to producing two million vehicles a year.”
“The problem is that we walked away from it, and now we are paying the price. Our plan would also protect supply chains. Despite what others may imply, we would maintain the 75% North American content requirement. We would support the parts workers who make the engines, the transmissions and the components that keep this industry running. Canada's auto industry is not just assembly lines, and it comes back to this: It is thousands of jobs across the entire supply chain, and each job is a person and a family. The Conservative auto plan also focuses on protecting our security and our future. We would establish a North American cybersecurity and data standard and ensure that vehicles connected to hostile regimes would not operate in sensitive environments in Canada. That is because our auto industry is about more than economics.”
“We would also implement a clear rule that, for every vehicle a company builds in Canada, they would sell one vehicle in Canada, duty-free, from a North American partner, one for one. This is about fairness and about balance, and it is about sending a clear message that if they want access to Canadian consumers, they need to invest in Canada and in Canadian auto workers. The approach is not new, and we have received some criticism that we are moving back to the past, but my argument is this: The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Perhaps we should look to a strategy that has worked for us in the past and brought our production from 700,000 vehicles to three million vehicles. Perhaps it can work for us again during these times. We know what works.”
“We will not just sit and wait and hope that the Liberals come up with some way of getting a deal. We are putting forward a plan, and we and our leader have asked the Prime Minister to feel free to steal some pieces of it or all of it, should he so choose, to rebuild Canada's auto industry and bring jobs back home. It is a plan built on a simple idea: If they sell here, they should build here. The Conservative auto plan would make it easier to build and buy Canadian by removing the GST, and the GST portion of the HST, on Canadian-made vehicles, and to add up to 30,000 new sales a year. That means lower prices for Canadians and more demand for vehicles built by Canadian auto workers.”
“For decades we built cars together, we built supply chains together, and we built prosperity together. The United States buys about 90% of the vehicles we make here in Canada, whereas the rest of the world buys almost none. Even today, Canada exports less than 2% of its vehicles to Europe, so when the Prime Minister suggests that we can just pivot away from North America, that is not a plan. It is wishful thinking, and auto workers in Oshawa cannot build their future on wishful thinking. (1040) Therefore, the question before the House is simple: Do we accept that future and continue to live in the fear and the uncertainty coming out of the White House, or do we as Canadians take a stand and fight for something better? Conservatives are choosing to fight.”
“As was mentioned, local Oshawa Unifor president said, “Finally, a commonsense plan to protect the livelihood of thousands of Ontario Auto sector workers.” More importantly, he also said, “A plan that restores past production levels and secures a long-term future”. They are not content to sit on their hands and wait to see if the Liberal government will ever stand up for auto jobs here in Canada. I know many of my neighbours in Oshawa are afraid of the decisions and uncertainty coming out of the United States from the current President, and I share their concerns. However, we cannot simply pretend that we can walk away from the United States and replace that market with somewhere else. It is geographically impossible. Canada's auto industry was built on partnerships with the United States.”
“What I hear on the ground tells me a very different story from the one the Liberals are proclaiming here in this House. Just last week in Oshawa, I met again with representatives from General Motors from Canada and the United States. They welcomed our Conservative auto plan, specifically as it clearly aligns our regulatory, emissions and safety standards with those in the United States. They acknowledge that this is exactly what the Canadian auto industry needs to grow, because right now we are asking Canadian workers to compete under a different and often heavier set of rules than their American counterparts. That does not strengthen our industry; it simply holds it back.”
“This is not just an economic issue; it is a personal one. What has been the Liberal government's response? Well, the Liberals seem to have accepted it. They have accepted unjustified tariffs imposed by Donald Trump, the decline in Canada's proud auto industry, and the idea that Canada should settle for less. They seem to simply be content trying to manage the decline of our Canadian auto sector, rather than reinvigorating it. That is not good enough for Oshawa, and it is not good enough for Canadian auto workers. For months now in question period, I have asked the Prime Minister and the Minister of Industry a simple question: When will the government start standing up for Oshawa and all Canadian auto workers? Every single time, we get excuses. The minister tells me to talk to General Motors or to talk to Unifor. I have done exactly that.”
“They are watching uncertainty in an industry they fought hard to rebuild. They are asking a simple question: Who is fighting for us? It is as simple as that. Who is fighting for us? The facts are hard to ignore. Since the Liberal government took office in 2015, auto production has fallen by half, from over two million vehicles to just 1.2 million. Since last year alone, under the current Liberal Prime Minister , it is down 7.8%. Thousands of auto workers have already lost their jobs, including in Oshawa. Let me remind the House that it was this Prime Minister who said while he was campaigning that he was the man with the plan and the one to get a deal, and that he was the one Oshawa could apparently trust to do the job. Exports are down, plants are under threat, and entire communities are feeling consequences.”
“Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise this morning on behalf of my neighbours in Oshawa about a great concern that touches so many of our lives. I would like to take a brief moment, though, to thank those of this House, as well as those of the Christian community who joined us this morning at the 60th National Prayer Breakfast. I was honoured to be in attendance. In my community, the auto industry is not just another sector of the economy; it is part of who we are. It is early mornings at the assembly line. It is generations of families who have built their lives around honest, skilled work and parents who put food on the table because of a job at the Oshawa assembly plant. Right now, those workers are worried. They are watching their jobs disappear to the United States. They are watching shifts at plants get cut.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the work that our Conservative opposition has done on this plan. I would like my colleague, if he would, to summarize the difference between the Liberal plan and the Conservative plan.”
“Mr. Speaker, it would be awfully nice if we saw the Liberal government do something. I know first-hand that Unifor members love our Conservative auto strategy. Maybe it is time that they spoke with folks on the assembly line. Since 2015, auto production in Canada has been cut in half. It is down another 7.8% under the Liberal Prime Minister . At a time when unjustified American tariffs threaten our sector, the Liberals have failed to table a plan that would persuade Americans to remove tariffs on Canadian goods. Will they support our Conservative plan to double auto production through a tariff-free auto pact?”
“Mr. Speaker, last week I was privileged to walk the line at the Oshawa GM assembly plant, speaking with auto workers directly. I could see first-hand the pride, skill and dedication that built Oshawa's auto industry. They are the ones paying the price for the Liberal government's inaction. Uncertainty is making it harder for them to plan their futures and count on stable livelihoods. We need to protect their jobs and grow Canada's auto industry. Will the Liberals finally stand up for Oshawa and all auto workers and support our Conservative plan for a tariff-free auto pact?”
“Mr. Speaker, it would be awfully nice if the Liberal government would go to Washington and fight for Canadian auto workers. We cannot control what Donald Trump does, but we do know what we can control, and that is our policies here at home. The Minister of Industry and the Prime Minister can certainly control their constant flip-flopping. Conservatives have a plan: Scrap rebates for foreign-made EVs and remove the HST on Canadian-made vehicles to spur investment and protect jobs here at home. Will the Liberals finally adopt our proposals and join Conservatives in supporting the resilient auto workers in Oshawa and across Canada?”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada's auto exports have fallen to their lowest levels in years. More than 5,000 auto workers have already lost their jobs as shifts are cancelled and production lines, such as the third line in Oshawa, are shut down. In communities like mine, auto workers and their families know exactly what that means. When the auto industry suffers, entire communities feel it. Will the Liberals finally put Canadian auto workers first, or will they keep using Canadian tax dollars to subsidize foreign-made vehicles while our jobs disappear?”
“Mr. Speaker, last week a convicted first-degree murderer was released unescorted in Oshawa for 72 hours. This man tortured, raped and murdered a 14-year-old boy and then threw his body in a garbage room. Durham Regional Police said that he is currently “a significant risk” and told Oshawa residents “to stay vigilant”. Will the Prime Minister condemn this decision by the Parole Board of Canada and work with Conservatives to ensure that child killers serve their full sentences and are not released and walking our streets?”
“Mr. Speaker, this case is not a one-off, but good job by the Liberals to blame the provinces. It is one of several cases where serious crimes are met with soft consequences because of loopholes in our immigration system. Canadians are tired of hearing the Liberal government say that everything is under control while headlines prove the opposite. There is a 3,000% increase in asylum claimants, and 25,000 admissions without an in-person interview. How many more failed immigration ministers will it take before the Prime Minister admits that his system is broken?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that Canada's immigration system is “under control”. In the GTA, a man in his thirties arranged to pay $140 to sexually exploit a 15-year-old. That is my daughter's age. He was arrested with cash in hand, went to court and, because of his immigration status, will not even receive a criminal record. How is that under control? When will the Prime Minister take responsibility and finally fire his immigration minister ?”
“Mr. Speaker, interim federal health program costs have quadrupled in four years. Providers are billing up to five times the provincial rates for care for rejected asylum claimants. Meanwhile, folks in Oshawa are waiting for care. They cannot find a doctor or access to benefits like vision care, physiotherapy and counselling, despite paying into the system their whole lives. Rejected claimants are receiving better health benefits than Canadians. Will the Liberals help us make this right and support our Conservative motion that preserves fairness and compassion?”
“Mr. Speaker, the simple answer to that is that they are not naive. I think they know exactly what the problems are. I think they know what the issues are, but they do not want to admit that the Liberal government's terrible policies over the past 11 years have caused the problems. To admit there is an issue would be to admit that they are the reason for it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will focus more on the second question, simply because I sit on the Standing Committee for Public Safety and National Security. I speak to CBSA agents and others quite often who tell me that they are concerned by the number of false claimants who are coming to Canada and that it feels as though it is 1% who are really legitimate refugees. Juxtapose that with the fact that we have violent criminals who are not Canadians staying in Canada: There are 10,000 plus, I think, in the GTA, and right now we have only seven CBSA agents who are actively working on inland enforcement and to make sure we expel those people. We need to do something about that, and we need to do it quickly.”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the member is quite understanding. As an educational therapist, I look for evidence-based solutions for things all the time. This is simply what this Conservative motion is proposing: an evidence-based solution. The interim federal health program has quadrupled. Canadians are having a hard time finding a doctor and getting care. It is a simple cause and effect. Let us help the Canadians who fund this system. Let us help the refugees who are here to seek help, and let us work on that together, compassionately and fairly.”
“We can ensure that benefits are fair to taxpayers, and we can make sure that before expanding intake, we have enough jobs, enough housing and the capacity in our health care system to care as we would love to. That is how we would preserve both compassion and fairness, and I think we can do it. We are simply calling on the government to help us help it preserve compassion and fairness. That is how we would better support communities like mine in Oshawa, Durham Region and across the country, and that is how we ensure that the Canadian dream remains real and attainable for those who come here and for the Canadians who have built this country. For those reasons, I urge all members of the House to support the motion. I welcome all comments and questions as we continue in this debate.”
“The motion calls for these policies, and it is very important that public safety be put first. The motion is about protecting the integrity of a system that has allowed communities like mine in Oshawa to continue to flourish. When immigration is managed responsibly, it strengthens our workforce, enriches our culture and builds vibrant cities. When it is mismanaged, costs spiral, backlogs grow and public confidence erodes. Conservatives believe we can restore balance, and that is all we are looking for. We can protect genuine refugees, and we want to. We can make that happen. We can reduce backlogs so legitimate claims are processed quickly.”
“It calls to restrict federal benefits received by rejected asylum claimants to emergency life-saving health care, so there would be no denial of care, as the New Democrats are also trying to claim. We would not be restricting refugee health benefits. We would be restricting them for those who have been rejected and those who perhaps have lied in claiming refugee status, and have been denied. That would ensure that we remain humane while restoring fairness. The motion calls for transparency through an annual report to Parliament on IFHP spending, particularly on supplementary benefits that Canadian citizens themselves do not receive, and it calls for policies to immediately expel foreign nationals convicted of serious crimes in Canada. The public safety of Canadians depends on it.”
“(1345) I will give an example of that briefly. My sister had a terrible injury. She broke her leg. It was so bad that she expected to take six months to recover, and of course she was signed up for physiotherapy. When she called to get the physiotherapy that was covered, she found out she had to wait six months before she could see someone for that. This is the backlog that we are talking about. She is supposed to be walking again by the time she is supposed to start physiotherapy to learn to walk again, so let us make this fair for the Canadians who fund the system. The motion calls on the government to review federal benefits provided to asylum claimants in order to find savings for taxpayers.”
“They are left in limbo and are at greater risk of falling between the cracks and not getting the help that Canada promised them. A broken system fails Canadians, and it fails the very people it is supposed to protect. We cannot promise the Canadian dream if we cannot provide an efficient health care system. We cannot invite people to build their future here if we cannot ensure access to doctors, hospitals and basic care. A dream without delivery is simply an empty promise. The motion simply offers reasonable solutions. It calls on the government to review federal benefits provided to asylum claimants in order to find savings for taxpayers. It calls on the government to review them, to take a look and see what is happening. Perhaps the extra benefits that rejected asylum claimants receive but everyday Canadians do not should be restricted.”
“At the House of Commons health committee, Conservatives learned that health care providers are charging taxpayers up to five times the provincial rates for services delivered under the interim federal health program. I will repeat that: It is five times the provincial rate. That is not sustainable, and it undermines confidence in the system. There is another serious consequence of the government's mismanagement. The massive backlog of asylum claims, up nearly 3,000% since 2015, does not help legitimate asylum seekers. In fact, it harms them. When the system is flooded with claims, including those that are false and ineligible, processing times slow dramatically. Genuine refugees fleeing persecution are left waiting in uncertainty. They cannot properly settle. They cannot fully integrate.”
“In Oshawa, I hear from residents who cannot access timely care. I speak with seniors who are worried about surgery delays. I speak with young families who cannot find a primary care physician, yet, under the interim federal health program, rejected asylum claimants can access benefits that many Canadians do not have free access to. These benefits include pharmaceutical coverage, vision care, prosthetics and assistive devices, home care, nursing homes, physiotherapy, occupational and speech therapy and counselling. Many hard-working Canadians in Oshawa do not have comprehensive drug coverage. They pay out of pocket for glasses. They fundraise for medical equipment. It is fundamentally unfair that rejected asylum claimants can access broader supplementary benefits than the taxpayers who fund the system.”
“Fiesta Week reflects the very best of our country. It shows that immigration, when it is orderly and fair, strengthens our communities. It shows that we can honour our roots while embracing our shared Canadian identity, but for immigration to continue strengthening communities like Oshawa, the system must be credible. It must be sustainable, and it must be fair. Right now, I am afraid it is not. The cost of the interim federal health program, or IFHP, has more than quadrupled in just four years, rising from $211 million to $896 million. It is projected to reach $1.5 billion by 2029-30. At the same time, nearly six million Canadians cannot find a family doctor. Emergency rooms like Lakeridge Health in Oshawa are overwhelmed. Seniors are waiting months for procedures. Families are struggling to access mental health supports.”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not have to say this, but I am going to say it anyway. I am splitting my time with my beautiful seatmate, the member for Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay . As always, it is an honour to rise on behalf of Oshawa. Of course, I speak in support of today's Conservative motion. Oshawa is a proud and welcoming community. Our city has been shaped by generations of newcomers who came to Canada, worked hard, raised families and built strong neighbourhoods. As an example of this, every year in Oshawa we celebrate Fiesta Week, Oshawa's longest-running cultural celebration. It brings together music, dance, food and traditions from around the world that are represented in Oshawa. Families visit different pavilions, share meals and celebrate their heritage, while also celebrating what unites us as Canadians.”
“She has stood up in the House and spoken 32 times so far this session. The member who just spoke has filibustered; he has stood up 1,250 times.”
“Mr. Speaker, so many pieces of the member from Winnipeg North's speech did not make a lot of sense. A couple of things were regarding Bill C-14 . The Liberals were the ones who decided to defer Bill C-14. The member mentioned the BIA. Portions of that are going to be looked at in the public safety committee. The minute that motion came forward, we all voted in favour of looking at it right away to move it in front of other things, so what the member said is simply not the fact. We also talked about Bill C-16 . We support a lot of Bill C-16 , but we do not support that it would take away the mandatory part of minimum sentences. The last note I have is that the member talked about filibustering. The member for Ajax , a near-neighbour of mine, is a parliamentary secretary.”
“Madam Speaker, it does not seem the Liberals want Parliament to work. They keep saying things like Conservatives are obstructing. It seems to me they are obstructing many of their own bills from going forward. We have been helping them or trying to help them speed up good government legislation that helps Canadians. I wonder if the member would comment on that and the fact that we would like to move things through quickly. We call on the government to collaborate and to work with us and stop obstructing its own agenda by playing politics.”
“Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from the Bloc's speech, and I appreciate the fact that he talked about the human aspect of it and his concern about things being human. I can assure him that that is exactly why this opposition day motion was presented. It was because of the human factor. A lot of my concern today is about legitimate refugee claimants who are possibly at risk or whose claims are delayed. Their housing and health care also suffer because we have criminals making false refugee claims. I sit on the public safety committee with one of my Bloc colleagues, and she and I talk a lot about the human reasons for needing to crack down on this. I know she supported some of the Conservatives' recommendations on Bill C-12 for the same reason the Liberals voted against it. I wonder if my colleague would comment on some of that.”
“Madam Speaker, I am pretty sure we only have one Privacy Commissioner. We have one oversight for that and one oversight for the others. Let us remember that, between 2015 and 2017, the Liberal government opened six oversight bodies: the modern treaty implementation office, the assessment of modern treaty implications office, the modern treaty management environment, and on and on it—”
“Madam Speaker, I think it is just that: We have to hold the minister responsible for implementing a treaty. We already have the commitments and agreements. Another body having to make sure it happens is redundant if the ministers responsible are doing their jobs.”
“Madam Speaker, I understand the member's point of view. I guess the Liberals are admitting that they cannot do the job unless a commissioner tells them what they are doing wrong or right. They clearly have trouble implementing and making commitments, and following through on ones we have already made. As I said before, promises were made. Let us keep those promises. Clearly, the legislation is an admission of guilt. The government cannot keep promises unless an outside body forces it to.”
“Madam Speaker, I am not sure I completely understand the question. I believe it was implied that the Liberal government is the first to speak with first nations, which does not make much sense to me. Perhaps I did not understand the question. I will reiterate that we either keep our promises or do not. There are promises and commitments that we have made. Adding another layer of bureaucracy will simply add paperwork rather than keep promises, as we are meant to do.”
“Let us do the work of implementing the treaties we already have instead of inventing new bureaucracies to explain why the work has not been done. We need promises kept, not paperwork created. That is what reconciliation requires.”
“Bill C-10 offers the appearance of accountability but not the substance of it, and that seems to be a recurring theme in the 45th Parliament. We have the appearance of accountability but not the substance of it. We have the appearance of action but not the substance of it. We have the appearance of deals, but these are just MOUs. It is a recurring theme, and this legislation continues with that theme. The honour of the Crown is not restored by expanding government. It is restored by fulfilling promises that already exist in law. The bill would not make departments work harder. It would not increase ministerial responsibility. It would not enforce treaty obligations. What Canada needs is leadership, execution and real partnership with indigenous governments, not another office monitoring the inaction of others.”
“If a department ignores a treaty commitment, its minister should answer for it. If a treaty obligation is delayed, the officials responsible should be held accountable. A commissioner cannot do that. Only leadership can. Indigenous partners should have a direct role in holding departments accountable instead of waiting for another report confirming what they already know. Conservatives support modern treaties. We support indigenous self-government. We support moving beyond the Indian Act and strengthening nation-to-nation relationships. However, we do not support the idea that accountability can be outsourced to yet another office. Reconciliation is not achieved by hiring more bureaucrats. It is achieved by honouring the commitments we have already made, enforcing obligations and delivering measurable results.”
“We have seen millions wasted on programs that produce very little. Do members remember ArriveCAN? It alone is a reminder of how mismanagement can drain not only public trust but also public resources. A commissioner cannot stop fraud or fix broken procurement. Only proper internal controls, transparency, consequences and accountability can do that. Across the country, indigenous leaders are asking for reliable partnerships and predictable implementation, not more Ottawa-centric offices. They want fiscal arrangements that are clear, timely and fair. They want departments to stop shuffling responsibilities among each other, leaving treaty partners caught in the middle. They want the authority in their agreements respected, not second-guessed. This is why accountability must be political, not symbolic.”
“(1235) Meanwhile, communities continue to face real challenges. Housing shortages remain severe, water systems remain unsafe and policing is still not recognized as an essential service despite years of promises. Economic development is slowed by federal bottlenecks. Climate impacts disproportionately affect indigenous communities that have been calling for action for years. All these issues are rooted in operational failures, not oversight failures. No commissioner will build a home, repair a water plant or hire police officers. What is missing is political will and departmental discipline. We cannot overlook the federal failures in procurement and contracting that have hurt indigenous communities. We have seen firms falsely claim indigenous identity in order to win contracts.”
“If the government has ignored the Auditor General's findings for almost 20 years, why would a new commissioner suddenly change anything? Departments do not fail because no one is watching. They fail because there are no consequences when they do. This is not the first time the Liberals have tried to fix failure by creating more bureaucracy. Between 2015 and 2017, they opened the modern treaty implementation office, the assessment of modern treaty implications office, the modern treaty management environment, the deputy ministers' oversight committee, the reconciliation secretariat and a performance framework. There are six separate entities and not a single modern treaty has been completed. Now they want a seventh office, one with no enforcement power and no ability to hold ministers accountable.”
“I believe what has been missing is leadership and consequences. We have historical proof. We know progress is possible. Under Prime Minister Harper, five modern treaties were completed in six years. Under the Liberal government, after more than a decade in power, not a single modern treaty has been completed. Currently, 70 indigenous groups are negotiating with the federal government and nothing has been finalized. That is not an oversight failure. That is a failure in leadership. The government claims Bill C-10 is needed to identify gaps, but we already have decades of reports spelling out those gaps. The Auditor General has produced major audits on treaty implementation, land entitlements, governance barriers and negotiation processes. Many recommendations are still sitting untouched.”
“Their purpose is to allow indigenous nations to move beyond the paternalism of the Indian Act and toward true self-determination. Understanding this matters because implementation is not about creating new oversight offices. It is about ensuring departments respect the authority and commitments already set out in law. We saw this with the Whitecap Dakota self-government agreement that passed with Conservative support in 2023. It is a step forward but not a full modern treaty. There is still work to be done, and that work has nothing to do with the absence of a commissioner and everything to do with the departments not following through. How would a commissioner suddenly fix what ministers have failed to do for years? Ministers already have the ability to demand results, and departments already have responsibilities.”
“In truth, it creates another office to point out the same shortcomings we have known about for years. The Auditor General has already flagged them. Indigenous leaders have already flagged them. Treaty partners have already flagged them. The problem is not a shortage of oversight; the problem is a shortage of execution. Today I want to speak clearly about where treaty implementation stands in this country, what modern treaties actually are and why I do not believe another multi-million dollar bureaucracy will help move us closer to honouring the commitments that have already been made. Modern treaties are comprehensive land claims agreements that clarify land, resources and governance, as well as constitutional rights. Many include self-government provisions. Some stand alone as self-government agreements. They are enforceable and binding.”