Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation Bill
Second Reading
October 6, 2026
Honourable senators, this is part two on modern treaty-making, and I promise the next 10 minutes will be more important than the past 20.
When I was interrupted, I was talking about the need for an independent commissioner.
An assessment of federal conduct must be capable of reaching findings that a department or minister might not welcome. The commissioner must be able to select work, follow the evidence and report candidly without political direction over those judgments. That independence is essential if findings are going to be impartial, credible and transparent to treaty partners, Parliament and the public. Independence must also be matched by expertise. The person appointed should understand the legal framework, the histories and the practical realities of modern treaty implementation.
The bill gives that independence practical form. The minister must consult Indigenous modern treaty partners before recommending a commissioner. Parliamentary leaders are consulted, and both houses must approve the appointment by resolution. The commissioner serves during good behaviour for up to seven years, with one possible reappointment, and may be removed for cause on the address of both houses.
The appointee’s knowledge and experience of modern treaties must be considered. The commissioner independently sets priorities and determines the number and frequency of reviews, audits and briefings. Those safeguards matter more than that label alone. At the end of each review or audit, the commissioner must report on the method used, the findings and the recommendations. Affected federal institutions must receive relevant preliminary findings and recommendations, and they must respond in writing. Relevant Indigenous modern treaty partners may respond. Timely responses must appear in the final report that gives Parliament the findings and the parties’ views together.
The final report, review or audit goes directly to the Speakers of the House of Commons and the Senate, being tabled within 15 sitting days. It then stands referred to a committee designated or established to review it.
Annual and urgent special reports follow a different route. They go to the minister, who must cause them to be tabled within 15 sitting days. The minister is responsible for tabling those reports; the commissioner is responsible for their content.
Parliament’s role cannot end when a report is tabled. A committee can ask why a finding arose, what a department has done in response, whether a commitment appears in budgets or work plans and whether a treaty partner sees any changes. This is the value of reporting to the other place and to the Senate. Senators and members of the other place can ask probing questions and keep the government’s conduct in view. If recommendations are ignored, the commissioner cannot impose a penalty. Parliament can still insist on an explanation and continue to test the government’s response in public.
Why have a dedicated commissioner? Some colleagues will ask why the Auditor General cannot do this work. The Auditor General has a vital role, and it is examining treaty implementation at other times. Bill C-10 does not displace that office; it creates a dedicated agent of Parliament whose mandate is modern treaty implementation — which is very specific — with an express duty to engage relevant treaty partners and review and assess federal activity against the bills’ relational and treaty objectives. The bill requires reasonable coordination with the Auditor General to avoid unnecessary overlap and permits appropriate information sharing. Similar institutional independence can coexist with different mandates.
Specialization alone is no guarantee of effectiveness, but a sustained view across institutions can expose patterns that a series of isolated files might conceal. The value of a new office will be measured in the quality of its findings, the trust it earns and what federal institutions do in response.
The bill also respects negotiated treaty machinery. It says that its reviews and audits are not substitutes for dispute resolution under a modern treaty or related agreement. Where a treaty or implementing law already provides a particular review or audit, the commissioner is not assigned responsibility for carrying it out, though the commissioner retains discretion to examine federal activity within the statutory mandate given to that person.
The bill does not promise treaty partners that the office will adjudicate their claims or take over their own processes.
I want to be direct about the central limitation: Bill C-10 does not give the commissioner binding remedial powers, impose fines or automatically require a department to act on a recommendation. The concern that Canada might produce another report and fail to change its conduct is serious, and I would not ask colleagues to dismiss it.
My answer is that this bill addresses a distinct gap. It gives modern treaty partners and Parliament a continuing independent account of federal implementation across government. It can identify the institution responsible, record its response and return to systemic problems over time. That is meaningful accountability, but it is not enforcement.
Treaty obligations remain binding in their own right. This bill neither weakens those obligations nor replaces legal remedies available elsewhere.
We should also judge the institution after it begins its work. The bill requires an independent review within five years and then every seven years thereafter, with consultation with modern treaty partners and consideration of changes to the mandate and powers. Parliamentary review is required within 10 years and every tenth year thereafter. Such reviews are opportunities to ask whether recommendations have led to action, whether the office has enough expertise and resources and whether stronger tools are required.
There is a further responsibility here for government. Independence on paper will mean little if the office cannot attract treaty expertise, undertake timely work or obtain practical access to information. A credible commissioner also needs departments prepared to answer candidly and act.
As senators, we should listen to the treaty partners, experts and affected institutions about whether the office can meet that standard in practice.
Now, here are four significant points I want to make. Number one, the bill is congruent with the principles of the federal Parliament’s United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, or UNDRIP Act. Two, the bill is in concert with the duty to consult and, in fact, in my opinion, is a model of best practices by the federal government working cooperatively and collaboratively with Indigenous People, and it has produced a very good model that has a chance of success.
Third, this act in operation, acknowledging the solid underlying treaty principles and working cooperatively and collaboratively, has an opportunity to reduce and perhaps eliminate the litigation that we see so often between treaty parties. That is something that is very important. That’s sort of the fundamental ethos behind the office.
Four, with respect to building Canada strong, I was reminded this morning by President Eva Clayton of the Nisg̱a’a Nation — this is important — that nearly 60% of the projects and transformative strategies being assessed by Canada’s Major Projects Office have modern treaty intersections, making Indigenous modern treaty partners central to the projects of major national significance for our country. These four points reinforce the need for a modern treaty commissioner to be in place to keep treaty parties on track, both the federal government and the First Nations.
Honourable senators, in closing, when I was Treaty Commissioner, I told many Canadians that treaties are a bridge to the future, and I spoke of hope for a better partnership, hope for a better relationship, hope that communities would be able to shape their own futures and hope for the treaty relationship to find its rightful place in the Canadian state.
These hopes continue to matter. They require Canada to understand its history and to act on its responsibilities. The treaties made generations ago helped shape this country. Modern treaties continue the work of establishing rights, governance and enduring relationships within Canada. Each must be understood in its own terms; each deserves respect in implementation. Creating this commissioner would give Parliament an independent, continuing account of federal performance under modern treaties and an opportunity to insist on better follow-through.
I support Bill C-10, and I ask you, colleagues, to support it as well, to hear modern treaty partners during its study, hopefully in committee, and to give the new institution the scrutiny its purpose deserves. Its success will depend on expertise, independence, adequate capacity and a government prepared to respond. Our responsibility will continue when the commissioner’s reports come before us.
At the beginning of this speech, I asked us to draw an arrow from the historic treaties to the modern treaties and to the decision before this chamber. The common principles that underlie historic treaties have direct application to modern treaties. Those principles should be the lens used to find common meaning and common purpose in the interpretation of modern treaties.
That arrow leads from the promises through which people sought to live together to their recognition in our Constitution and now to a practical measure for examining whether Canada honours its modern treaty commitments. It points forward to the relationship we intend to leave for generations yet to come.
The hope I spoke of when I was Treaty Commissioner is also here in this room with us right now. Our hearts hold the values that guide our judgment: respect for treaty peoples, good faith in the promises of the Crown and a commitment to justice. Our hands carry the responsibility of turning that judgment into parliamentary action.
Colleagues, the hope that I have spoken about ultimately rests in your hearts and hands. I support Bill C-10, and I ask you to take this step. My fundamental hope is that Indigenous People take their rightful place in Canadian society and that they enjoy the peace, prosperity and harmony that are the very essence of this country.
I ask that this bill, after second reading, be sent to the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples. I’m hoping that the committee will examine this bill and report it back, without amendment, so that it can pass at the very earliest opportunity.
Thank you, senators.
Honourable senators, I rise today to speak as the critic of Bill C-10, an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation.
Modern treaties are an expression of the nation-to-nation, government-to-government or Indigenous-to-Crown relationship between the Indigenous signatory, the Government of Canada and, as applicable, a province or territory.
They are intended to further define and recognize the Indigenous land and resource rights of the Indigenous signatory and to meaningfully improve the social, cultural, political and economic well-being of the Indigenous People concerned.
At the same time, these agreements provide all signatories with a mutual foundation for the beneficial and sustainable development and use of Indigenous Peoples’ traditional lands and resources.
The modern treaties cover 45% of Canada’s total land and sea mass, 80% of Canada’s North and over two‑thirds of Canada’s coastline, including adjacent marine shipping routes.
On October 27, 2025, Ms. Eva Clayton provided the following information on the history of Bill C-10 to my office:
Since its formation in 2003, the Land Claims Agreements Coalition, or LCAC, has been calling for an independent implementation and review body that would report directly to Parliament on modern treaty implementation. The federal government made a commitment to establish that body in Canada’s Collaborative Modern Treaty Implementation Policy, which was adopted by the government in 2023.
Annex B of the Implementation Policy states:
B.1. Canada and Indigenous Modern Treaty Partners recognize that more work is required to ensure the federal government is held accountable to Parliament for its actions.
B.2. Recognizing that this is a priority for both Canada and Indigenous Modern Treaty Partners, Canada and Indigenous Modern Treaty Partners will co-develop, within the next 6 months, recommendations to put in place credible, effective, sustainable and independent oversight mechanisms to hold the federal government accountable to Parliament.
B.3. For certainty, recommendations arising from this co‑development process will explore a range of options, including the establishment of a Modern Treaty Implementation Review Commission within the Office of the Auditor General, as well as the creation of a separate Agent of Parliament, with the purpose of monitoring and reviewing the federal implementation of modern treaties.
This led to six months of impressive and intensive collaborative efforts between the federal government and Indigenous modern treaty partners, resulting in a co-developed proposal for an independent oversight body, referred to as the commissioner for modern treaty implementation.
On May 2, 2024, the then Prime Minister announced the creation of that body.
The federal government and Indigenous modern treaty partners co-developed the legislation for that body, which was introduced in October 2024 as Bill C-77, an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation.
Unfortunately, Bill C-77 only received first reading. This was not because there was a problem with the bill. Parliament at the time was deadlocked. Bill C-77 died on the Order Paper when the House was prorogued.
The bill has now been introduced as Bill C-10. It is the same co-developed bill, which is why the Nisga’a Nation and others are not seeking any amendments — because they co-developed it. In other words, they support it as drafted.
On December 3, 2025, LCAC further provided the following information to my office:
Bill C-10 was co-developed by the federal government and Indigenous modern treaty partners across Canada. It is more than just another government bill; it is our bill as well. Indigenous modern treaty partners have advocated for an independent oversight body for modern treaty implementation for more than 20 years. Put simply, the Indigenous modern treaty partners fully support Bill C-10 as drafted.
The bill will improve Indigenous self-determination and autonomy. The full, effective and timely implementation can yield concrete socio-economic gains. A federal evaluation found that Indigenous people in self-governing communities will experience higher incomes, greater employment, better housing conditions and overall improved community well-being compared to those under the Indian Act system. Modern treaties are good for the economy and, therefore, good for all Canadians.
Modern treaties are constitutionally protected agreements that form an essential part of the constitutional framework of Canada and represent a distinct expression of reconciliation. They clarify the land and resource rights, both of the Indigenous signatories and of the Crown, and are intended to improve the social, cultural, political and economic well-being of the Indigenous Peoples concerned.
When modern treaties are implemented well, Canada prospers. However, when modern treaties are neglected, Canada’s credibility and integrity suffer. Bill C-10 will bring the necessary oversight and accountability within the federal system that has been missing for far too long.
Decades of unfruitful efforts to improve modern treaty implementation have demonstrated that the failures are not individual but structural. Federal public servants can only act within the mandates that they are given. Without political-level direction and accountability, even the best-intentioned public servants are left without the tools or authority to deliver results. The commissioner will ensure that parliamentarians and, through them, Canadians have the power to hold to account the highest levels of government, not just individual bureaucrats.
Over the years, the Auditor General has provided important reviews of various Indigenous issues, but performance audits of modern treaties have been few and far between. The Auditor General’s broad mandate and scope limited to existing government programs also make that office ill-suited for the task. Modern treaties require continuous, comprehensive and specialized attention, which the commissioner will provide.
The commissioner will be an independent agent of Parliament, so there will not be another layer of bureaucracy; it will shine a light on performance rather than processes.
Fifty years after the first modern treaty was signed, implementation continues to fall short. Many Indigenous modern treaty partners continue to have no choice but to spend considerable resources and time forcing the federal government to honour commitments it made to them in their treaties. Governments of all stripes have tried to fix this issue internally, but while coordination between departments has improved, accountability has not. Modern treaty obligations remain unfulfilled, implementation uneven, results inconsistent, and trust fragile.
Importantly, implementation of treaties is and must remain a non-partisan issue. Modern treaties have been signed, and implementation challenges have persisted under both Conservative and Liberal governments. Systemic barriers, not ideology, are the cause of implementation issues. All political parties must remain committed to the full, effective and timely implementation of modern treaties, and each has a role to play in holding government accountable to the promises they made.
Colleagues, fully implemented modern treaties benefit all Canadians. They clarify the land and resource rights both of the Indigenous signatories and of the Crown. For Indigenous signatories, modern treaties offer new opportunities for self-reliance, political and economic development, as well as cultural and social well-being. They are the basis for building a renewed and positive relationship between Indigenous Peoples and wider Canadian society.
I fully support this bill going to committee to address the concerns that senators, the public and the modern treaty partners may have. Please support the Land Claims Agreements Coalition in their journey towards self-determination and implementation of their modern treaties.
Kinanâskomitinawow, thank you.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to and bill read second time.)
