An Act to amend the Interpretation Act and to make related amendments to other Acts

This bill is from the 44th Parliament, 1st session, which ended in January 2025.

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.

This enactment amends the Interpretation Act to provide that Acts of Parliament and regulations are to be construed as upholding the Aboriginal and treaty rights of Indigenous peoples recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 , and not as abrogating or derogating from them. It also amends or repeals similar provisions in other Acts known as non-derogation clauses.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other S-13s:

S-13 (2012) Port State Measures Agreement Implementation Act
S-13 (2010) Keeping Canadians Safe (Protecting Borders) Act
S-13 (2004) An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Parliament of Canada Act (Speakership of the Senate)
S-13 (2004) Federal Nominations Act

Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

October 5th, 2026 / 3:40 p.m.


See context

NDP

Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, we are not going to build Canada strong with this legislation. We would be building, in fact, a pipeline to the courts. For example, Bill C-39 would limit project review times to an arbitrary timeline of just one year, restricting time and resources for indigenous peoples to exercise their right to consultation and accommodation, as enshrined in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. As AFN National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak has stated, “Any predetermined timeline principally designed to attract investment subordinates the honor of the Crown to commercial imperatives.”

Moreover, in reaction to the publication of Bill C-39, vice-chief Michael Smithers of Coldwater Indian Band said, “There is anger in our community today, as we hear that Canada has given the green light to a third Trans Mountain pipeline through the Coldwater Valley.... The Crown’s duty to consult and accommodate Coldwater remains unfilled and Canada and Trans Mountain are not legally or respectfully operating in our reserve.”

It is a pipeline to the courts. Nowhere in Bill C-39 is the right of accommodation mentioned, which would allow regulators to ignore what they learn in consultations about potential impacts to indigenous and first nations communities and to move forward.

Bill C-39 also does not contain any reference to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, particularly the obligation to seek and obtain the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples. That is the right to say yes, no, yes with conditions or maybe later. This is despite, through Bill C-15, the government's being legally obliged to align all past and future legislation with UNDRIP.

I would like to remind the Liberal government that the critical purposes of UNDRIP are found in article 5, that the UN declaration is a human rights instrument with application in Canadian law and that the government must take all measures necessary to ensure its laws are consistent with UNDRIP. Moreover, as of right now, Bill C-39 repeatedly talks about indigenous groups while, in fact, “indigenous groups” is not defined within the legislation, nor in international law, which recognizes the rights of indigenous nations as “peoples”, not groups.

The question can legitimately be asked: Is Bill C-39 consistent with UNDRIP? The answer is a very clear no. This raises the question of who exactly the bill is referring to, even in the case of indigenous peoples, when it talks about consultation with indigenous “groups” instead. Why is the government trying to use vague language to avoid the clear terminology in constitutional and international law?

In November 2024, Bill S-13 was adopted to add to the federal Interpretation Act a safeguard provision, a non-derogation clause, to protect indigenous peoples' section 35 constitutional rights. I question today whether any measures in Bill C-39 are inconsistent with this non-derogation clause of Bill S-13. If so, which would take precedent? Indigenous peoples' constitutional rights are being attacked, a clear sign of the government once again ignoring the rule of law.

Concerning these dangerous anti-indigenous measures in Bill C-39, the Nishnawbe Aski Nation said, “Our Chiefs are watching the Carney government’s legislative agenda with growing alarm. Bill C-5 was a direct attack on our rights, and Bill C-39 elevates this to an unprecedented level. This government is making clear and deliberate choices to accelerate development at the expense of the rights of our Nations and our leaders”.

The bill would also establish whole so-called regions of national interest, which experts have likened to special economic zones in Doug Ford's anti-indigenous, anti-environment Bill 5.

Bill C-39 would also impose arbitrary review deadlines for complex, large-scale projects with multi-faceted environmental and species risks. In fact, it would give the minister of the One Canadian Economy Act the power to ignore critical species protection laws, and we know why. The government is trying to turn a blind eye to species at risk, like the southern resident orcas, whose population has been reduced to 73 adults and whose survival is jeopardized by the government's careless plans for major projects.

According to Charlie Hatt, the director of climate at Ecojustice, “The oil and gas lobby has gotten what it has long wanted, but it does not have to be this way. We can strengthen environmental safeguards while securing our economy by investing in clean energy”.

Let us talk about water. Bill C-39 would allow ministers to exempt whole bodies of water from protective regulations and legislation, and to unilaterally permit companies to dump waste water. I am going to be keeping an eye out this Friday, when the government introduces Bill C-37, which would take away the human right to clean drinking water for first nations. The NDP is watching this bill closely.

The NDP will always stand side by side to protect the rule of law and protect our Constitution.

The Speaker Greg Fergus

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, November 19, Bill S-13, an act to amend the Interpretation Act and to make related amendments to other acts, is deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in without amendment at report stage and deemed read a third time and passed.

(Bill reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed)

(Bill S-13. On the Order: Government Orders:)

November 25, 2024—The Minister of Justice—Consideration at report stage of Bill S-13, An Act to amend the Interpretation Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, as deemed reported by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights without amendment.

Department of Justice—Main Estimates, 2024-25Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

May 23rd, 2024 / 9:50 p.m.


See context

Liberal

Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for raising this, because I do not think we have talked enough about indigenous reconciliation in the context of this evening's interventions.

What Bill S-13 would do is simply and surgically amend the Interpretation Act, such that all federal legislation would be interpreted so as not to derogate from aboriginal and treaty rights that are protected under section 35 of the Constitution.

Right now, we have a checkerboard, where every individual piece of legislation has to insert this interpretive provision. If we simply amend the Interpretation Act, it would oversee the interpretation of all federal legislation and obviate the need for doing so.

We have consulted on this. We have worked with indigenous leadership on this. We have a bill that has worked its way through the Senate. That bill is something that actually should command unanimous consent in this chamber. I hope we can expeditiously pass it to do right by aboriginal and treaty rights that are constitutionally protected and need to be interpreted in that manner.

Department of Justice—Main Estimates, 2024-25Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

May 23rd, 2024 / 9:50 p.m.


See context

Liberal

Charles Sousa Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his leadership and his engagement on this critically important file, as well as working alongside other levels of government, collaborating with all who share the same concern to combat it. The minister is doing a fine job.

I also want to ask about the indigenous community and the issue of reconciliation, specifically around Bill S-13. Could the minister update us on that issue, in terms of how we are advancing the issue to support the first nations people?

Message from the SenateGovernment Orders

December 14th, 2023 / 5:30 p.m.


See context

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

I have the honour to inform the House that messages have been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed the following bills, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-13, an act to amend the Interpretation Act and to make related amendments to other acts, and Bill S-14, an act to amend the Canada National Parks Act, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, the Rouge National Urban Park Act and the National Parks of Canada Fishing Regulations.