Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Feb. 24th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 22 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

We recognize that we meet on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

Pursuant to the order of the House, the committee is commencing its study of Bill C-10, an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation.

I would like to welcome our witnesses. From the Nisga'a Lisims Government, we have Eva Clayton, president, and Brianne Paulin, legal counsel. From Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation, we have Chief Sheldon Sunshine. Online, from the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, we have Chief Pauline Frost.

We also have MP Billy Morin online this morning.

For those folks online, if you want my attention, use the “raise hand” function, please, and the clerk and I will make sure that we see you.

I want to remind people about our good interpreters and how to make their lives better and healthier. When you're not using your earpiece, there's a nice little place to put it. Don't grab your mic when you speak, because there will be feedback, and make sure your mic's light is off when you're not speaking. Thank you very much.

Without further ado, we're going to proceed to five-minute introductory comments from each one of our presenters.

Thank you so much for joining us here today.

Please take it away, President Eva Clayton.

[Eva Clayton, President, Nisga'a Lisims Government]

Thank you.

Good morning, honourable and respected members. I am pleased to be on the unceded territories of the Anishinabe and Algonquin to speak in full support of Bill C‑10.

I am here both as president of the Nisga'a Nation as well as one of the co-chairs for the Land Claims Agreements Coalition. The coalition was formed in 2003 and currently includes 23 indigenous modern treaties.

The coalition came together because we were faced with common problems related to the implementation of our agreements. All of us have spent decades negotiating our treaties with the Crown and have made considerable compromises to conclude our agreements. In our case, it took many years, 27 years of negotiations, to conclude our agreement. The Nisga'a Nation gave up ownership of more than 90% of our traditional territory in exchange for ownership of 10% of the land and for the certainty that our treaty brings.

However, soon after we entered into our treaty, we realized that the federal government was not equipped to implement our agreements in a timely and effective manner. In other words, our treaties were not being honoured. This is why the coalition, since its formation in 2003, has spent more than two decades advocating for an independent oversight body to hold the federal government to account for the implementation of its modern treaty obligations.

In other words, Bill C‑10 is not just a government bill. We asked for it, and it was co-drafted. We want this bill, and we do not think any amendments are required.

Importantly, after all of these years, the commissioner that Bill C‑10 would establish is still needed. Out of the 25 years of our treaty, the Nisga'a Nation has assessed that we have spent two-thirds of that time in dispute resolution or litigation with the provincial or federal crowns.

With no oversight body to turn to that would address how the federal government is implementing treaties, we have had no choice but to commence dispute resolution or litigation. For example, we have been in dispute for years now with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans because they continue to enter into agreements that have the potential to seriously impact our constitutionally protected fishing rights as set out in our treaty.

Our pleas have continually been ignored despite support from other federal departments, and we had no choice but to request that our issues be arbitrated. Having an oversight body to turn to could have avoided all of this and saved the cost to both treaty partners.

Its benefit was also recognized in 2008 when the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, chaired by a former Conservative cabinet member, recommended that such an entity be established through legislation in collaboration with the coalition.

The Liberal government recognized the need for and the benefit of this, and worked with us to co-develop Bill C‑10 in 2023.

We appreciate that governments of all stripes have made efforts to fix the structural federal problems that led to poor implementation. However, these tools are aimed at improving internal coordination. They do not provide Parliament with any independent assessment of treaty implementation. They do not hold the highest level of government to account.

This is why the establishment of an independent commissioner outside of the federal public service and reporting directly to Parliament is so important. The complexity and unique nature of modern treaties also require continuous, comprehensive and specialized attention. There is no existing mechanism that does this.

While the Auditor General has provided important reviews of various indigenous issues, it has a broad mandate and cannot focus solely on treaty implementation. To date, that office has only conducted specific reviews on modern treaty implementation on three occasions.

Finally, I want to emphasize that, when modern treaties are fully implemented, they benefit all Canadians. For example, we are co-developing the Ksi Lisims liquefied natural gas project on land that our nation owns under our treaty. This project is expected to bring $30 billion in investment, create thousands of skilled careers and strengthen Canada's leadership in low-emission LNG.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

President Clayton, could I get you to wrap up? We'll move to questions, and you'll get more out when we do that.

[Eva Clayton]

Okay. Thank you.

We owe much of this to the economic success that certainty brings. Our treaty brings certainty.

In closing, I want to express my hope that all parties will support Bill C-10. All parliamentarians have a role to play in holding government accountable for the promises made in modern treaties.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you, President Clayton.

Now we'll go to Chief Sunshine, please, for five minutes.

[Chief Sheldon Sunshine, Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation]

Thank you, Chairman.

[Witness spoke in Cree and provided the following translation:]

Hello, everyone.

I am thankful to the Creator for today.

[English]

My name is Sheldon Sunshine. I am the chief of Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation, Treaty No. 8 territory, and what is now known as northwestern Alberta. Today I speak for myself and my nation.

My nehiyaw, Cree, ancestors entered into Treaty No. 8 in 1899. It is not a modern treaty. It's one of the ones referred to collectively as the numbered treaties.

Amongst other things, this treaty is viewed as our consent for non-indigenous settlement in what is now Alberta. This was recently referred to in an Alberta court, on December 5, 2025, when the Honourable Justice Colin C.J. Feasby, in his decision, said, “First Nations’ consent to non-Indigenous settlement in what is now Alberta, memorialized in the Numbered Treaties, led to the creation of Alberta and continues to confer legitimacy on Alberta.”

In 1930, the Crown believed it had the authority to transfer natural resources to the Province of Alberta through the Natural Resources Transfer Acts. First nations were not party to this and did not consent to that. First nations were not even consulted in any of that. In fact, it cannot be overlooked that, in the 1930s, first nations people were prohibited by law to hire lawyers or to leave the reserve lands without permission under the pass system.

Our people have suffered cumulative impacts on our way of life due to resource development in our territory without receiving any share of the revenue or adequate consultation, as legally required.

Today we are facing an existential crisis in our treaty relationship in regard to Alberta separatism. What is Canada, the Crown, doing to protect the treaties and our treaty relationship? So far, nothing. This brings me to Bill C-10. On this, there are three issues I'd like to emphasize.

First, Bill C-10 is for the modern treaties only. We do not object to this, so long as the first nations with modern treaties agree with the legislation. I'm here to make sure this particular piece of legislation will not be used as a blueprint to be imposed on the numbered treaties. The numbered treaties are forever.

Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation cautions this committee against extending any treaty implementation mechanism to historic treaties if it is confined to the Government of Canada laws, policies or unilateral interpretations. Treaty No. 8 is not derived from federal statute. It is a nation-to-nation agreement whose meaning must be grounded in what our ancestors understood and agreed to at the time of its signing, informed by nehiyaw legal orders and oral history. Any commissioner or oversight body that prioritizes current policy frameworks over treaty law and nehiyaw understandings risks narrowing, freezing or redefining our treaty rights rather than implementing them. Canada's failure with historic treaties is not administrative—it is constitutional—and it cannot be resolved by a process that asks first nations to accept Canada's interpretation of promises that were never Canada's alone to define.

Second, Canada has unfinished business with the numbered treaties. We remind the federal government of the lack of effort to honourably implement the numbered treaties. Canada's one-sided specific claims process is grossly inappropriate for treaty implementation. Outside of that, litigation is the only option to get Canada moving towards treaty implementation. This needs to change.

Third, the creation and development of any treaty implementation process for the numbered treaties must be done on a nation-to-nation basis. According to federal law, treaty implementation is a constitutional obligation. Despite this, there is nothing in place to ensure implementation and observance of the numbered treaties. Instead, we have seen efforts to erase or modernize numbered treaties through action plans, specific claims, so-called inherent rights policies, self-government agreements, federal legislation management plans or, worse, pan-indigenous meetings or initiatives.

Canada seems to be using modernization as a means to an end. We do not consent. We are not looking for a new agreement, nor do we need one. Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation wants Treaty No. 8 to be fulfilled and implemented the way my ancestors believed it would be, for as long as the sun shines, the grass grows and the waters flow.

Before I close, I want to direct the committee members to the 1999 UN report by special rapporteur Miguel Alfonso Martínez. His final report was titled “Study on treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements between States and indigenous populations”. I will share these small excerpts from that report.

Paragraph 299 says that “the main lesson to be drawn from history concerns the problems of treaty enforcement and implementation.” Paragraph 300 says, “It is only too obvious that the problem in this area does not lie in the lack of provisions but...in the failure of the State party to comply with those provisions.”

In closing, our message to the federal government is don't forget about the numbered treaties. Implementation of our treaties is of the utmost importance. Thank you for inviting me here today.

Aye hiy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much, Chief Sunshine.

Online, we have Chief Pauline Frost.

You will have five minutes for a presentation.

[Chief Pauline Frost, Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation]

Vahn gwiinzii.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the standing committee.

I want to give the context of where I'm located. I'm located in north Yukon, in the small indigenous community of Old Crow, where 250 people reside. We're a strong, resilient tribe. We live on the land. We still are actively connected to our roots and our traditions.

I'm here today in strong support of Bill C-10. I would like to emphasize the importance of strong and effective accountability as envisioned under Bill C-10 to ensure our modern treaties are faithfully and fully implemented.

For more than 30 years, Canada has been actively involved with our self-government agreements in Yukon. We signed an agreement 30 years ago. A modern treaty is constitutionally protected under section 35 of the Constitution. Our agreements are not policy choices that can be shifted within government. They are binding commitments between the Crown and our nations.

Our modern treaties were intended over 35 years ago to replace uncertainty and conflict with clarity and partnership. They established defined rights, shared management structures, law-making authority and fiscal management. These landmark agreements lay out how we govern together, but even with these agreements in place significant challenges remain in achieving their full and effective implementation. Unfortunately, we see obligations and objectives unmet, despite clear commitments in our agreements.

Over time, implementation can stall, responsibilities become blurred and priorities shift. However, we continue to push for the full implementation, respect and honouring of our agreements. We do not want to revisit the past, but we want to ensure that we look towards the future together with Canada. Our agreements were clearly drafted over many years. They reflect decades of negotiations and compromise.

We are not seeking anything beyond good-faith implementation of what was already agreed to in the 28 chapters of our self-government agreement. This is why accountability mechanisms are so important. [Technical difficulty—Editor] kept and our agreements are upheld as they were originally envisioned by our ancestors. With accountability, we have predictability and [Technical difficulty—Editor]. It creates transparency and clarity.

Bill C-10 strengthens this accountability framework. [Technical difficulty—Editor] implementation challenges early. It safeguards mutually beneficial opportunities and reduces the risk of costly disputes like the legal disputes that were mentioned by my colleagues. [Technical difficulty—Editor] function as envisioned rather than being symbolic documents. For our nation, accountability ensures that hard-fought [Technical difficulty—Editor] through inaction or political or administrative shifts.

Strong accountability mechanisms actually protect the Crown as well. They create clarity around roles and timelines. They reduce uncertainty in our traditional territories. They reinforce the principle that treaty relationships are enduring nation-to-nation relationships. It is not only good governance. It is the honour of the Crown in action.

[Technical difficulty—Editor] of this legislation. The provisions reflected were not drafted unilaterally. They are the result of sustained dialogue [Technical difficulty—Editor] modern treaty partners. Our nation, along with others, sat at the table. We brought forward our experiences and worked through technical details. We arrived at language that carefully reflects the balance. Co-development must mean something. If indigenous governments engage in good faith, invest time and resources and reach consensus with Canada, that outcome should be respected by Parliament.

It reflects our shared understanding of how to improve accountability while respecting the original spirit and intent of our modern treaties. They establish indigenous governments as law-making authorities. They provide predictability for economic and infrastructure development while advancing reconciliation. In the north, they reinforce Canadian Arctic sovereignty. They reinforce the sovereignty priorities of Canada. When indigenous governments are recognized and empowered as partners, Canada's presence in the Arctic is strengthened.

I want to close by recalling a foundational principle of our self-government agreement: that our government has the authority to govern our own affairs in order to preserve our culture, manage our land and provide for our citizens. That principle reflects a vision of partnership, one in which we, as a government, have our rights, [Technical difficulty—Editor] jurisdictions, accountable to our citizens and working alongside Canada and Yukon.

Bill C-10 is a practical step towards ensuring [Technical difficulty—Editor]. On behalf of the Vuntut Gwitchin, I urge this committee to support Bill C-10.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much, Chief Frost.

Our technical people are saying that there is an issue with the Wi-Fi connection, so you were a little choppy. I think we got the gist, but can you send those remarks to us as well? I think the clerk may have them, so we can distribute them. I just note that there seemed to be a Wi-Fi connection issue. We're going to try to work through that to make sure that we get your answers to the questions that are coming up in this round.

We're going to move to questions now, and you'll be able to bring things out as we speak.

Thank you.

[Chief Pauline Frost]

Thank you.

We'll get that to you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Mrs. Gill, you have the floor.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to say that the interpreters have notified me on a number of occasions that the choppy connection you've observed is making their job very difficult. I know you've noticed it, and it's difficult for them as well.

The same thing may well happen while the witnesses are answering, so could we also ask the witnesses to send us their answers in writing? Given the problems during the introductory remarks, there's a chance we may not get all the answers either. I would like to have them.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you.

That is an excellent idea. We will have all our witnesses send remarks to us, please. Some of you have, and some may not have, but it would be excellent to have. It will give us an opportunity to delve into them even further.

Now we're going to go to a round of questions for six minutes. Each party will have an opportunity to ask questions. We'll start with the Conservatives.

I believe we have MP Morin online.

Please take it away.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to our guests, chiefs and President Clayton, for coming today.

I'm going to start with Chief Sunshine.

Chief, thank you for your testimony today and for coming to Ottawa. Note that I am at the AOTC, so maybe I'll see you here in the next couple of days if you hurry home. It would be good to see you in person as well.

Chief, you mentioned a few principles in terms of unfulfilled modern treaties when it comes to treaties 1 to 11. Would it be your position that treaties are documents foundational to the country of Canada?

[Chief Sheldon Sunshine]

Thank you, Billy, and thank you for the question.

It's good to see you, and yes, I'll be there tomorrow morning. I'm flying out tonight.

I think we all know the history of Canada, how it began and how the first nations of Canada welcomed settlement into our territories. It's always been through peace and friendship. First nation people have been very good treaty partners, and that hasn't been similarly reciprocated on the part of the government. When it comes to the foundational agreements, that is the reason we have Canada. That is the reason we have the provinces. It was because of those peace and friendship treaties that were allowed to happen.

When I sit here and think about different treaties, modern and historic, they've been dealing with some of these things for 26 years. We're dealing with things that happened 125 to 150 years ago. They call them historic treaties but, for us, they're from yesterday, passed on by stories and oral history from our elders and our ancestors. We deal with the impacts of what have been the failures of the Canadian government to uphold those responsibilities as we understand them.

We have to stop looking at the written text and thinking that was what was understood at the time, because it's false and it's wrong, and we deal with those impacts. I was talking to my sister from the west coast about some of the strides that they're making in their communities because of that treaty and some of the responsibilities upheld in the document, but they're still finding challenges and still wanting a commissioner to hold the government to its responsibilities.

We have a long way to go. I think that today we have the greatest opportunity to correct those, not only because of long-standing issues with the treaty responsibilities but with all the outside forces that are affecting us: the separatism in Alberta and the things happening south of us. Today is the greatest opportunity for us to change that for the better.

I hope I answered your question.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Thanks, Chief. You did.

I have a quick follow-up for you, if you don't mind. Treaties predate provinces in this country, notably in treaties 1 to 11. Treaty 8 covers Saskatchewan, Alberta, B.C. and I think NWT too. I stand to be corrected on that, but I'm pretty sure it covers NWT. Yes, it covers NWT.

Are you aware that there's a treaty commissioner office in Saskatchewan?

[Chief Sheldon Sunshine]

Yes, I am.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Have you ever had any interaction with that office?

[Chief Sheldon Sunshine]

No, I haven't. From what I understand, they're more of an educational piece. I'm not sure what authority they have in persuading government to uphold their treaties. I know that Saskatchewan is having the same issues, all across treaties 1 to 11, with regard to failures to uphold the treaties, from our understanding.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Treaties predate provinces. A commissioner has been in place for quite some time in Saskatchewan, and it sounds like you haven't had much interaction with them. Does that give you a lot of faith in terms of creating a new commissioner's office for the communities who represent modern treaties, or do you think this one will probably still have a long way to go before being effective?

[Chief Sheldon Sunshine]

We don't oppose a modern treaty commissioner. We welcome it, if it works for the modern treaties. The thing we want Canada to understand is that you're going to create a two-tiered system when it comes to treaty. We know that the agreements they have with modern treaties are very comprehensive. When you look at Treaty No. 8, I think it's three pages. I know the vagueness of some of those commitments contained in the text, and the reliance of the Government of Canada, regardless of who's in power, of sticking to that treaty text. However, a treaty text is not the understanding of the true intent and inherent meaning of treaty, which was to share the land.

We talk about how my friends on the west coast are flourishing in their nations, yet when we look all across Treaty 8 territory, there is struggle. There is a crisis in every aspect of our nations. That's a direct result of the lack of treaty commitment on behalf of the government. It's pretty simple: We have to get back to what that means, what that means for us and what the intent was at the time of signing a treaty. If there's ever any commissioner for treaties 1 to 11, then it has to come from that understanding. It can't follow the policy framework of modern legislation and policy today. We have to go back to that understanding of what was committed to at that time.

We want to be fair to the Government of Canada. One thing that really stands out in my mind is that we understand the need for change in the economy. We understand the need for better systems. We know that first-hand. We want to be part of it and to be part of the solutions, yet when things happen like Bill C-5 being passed in six weeks, first nations were an afterthought. That has to change.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much.

We will go to our next questioner.

Jaime, you have six minutes, please.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish, NS]

I'd like to thank the witnesses for their discussions this morning around treaties.

I heard Chief Frost and Eva Clayton talking about looking at the modern-day treaties of more than 25 years and 30 years. I listened to Chief Sunshine talk about a treaty of more than at least 150 years since its signing. Then, as a Mi'kmaq person celebrating the 300th year of our treaties with peace and friendship, there's a wide range in terms of how treaties have unfolded in this Canada. One thing we can all agree on is that they're foundational documents that have led to the creation of this country.

I think another thing we can all agree on is that we need to find better ways to implement them, whether it's 300 years, whether it's 180 years or whether it's 20 or 30 years. I have to commend the modern treaty nations who have said, you know, these things we signed between 25 or 30 years ago aren't working out as well as we'd like. Instead of going to litigation, as many of us as nations all across Canada have done, which is costly and timely, you're taking a new approach. You're saying, you know, if we have a modern-day treaty commissioner, maybe we can figure out what the differences are and what things we're not happy with. We can create some kind of oversight, accountability and action from government; I applaud them for that.

Eva, I'll go to you for my first question. If we can get this legislation across, if we can get a modern treaty commissioner in place, what's an example of things you think you would be able to bring—things that we can't do currently—that would help be resolved with a modern-day treaty commissioner in place ?

[Eva Clayton]

A good example is the issues we continue to face with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We should have been able to go to the commissioner's office to say that we need this help. We need to make sure that DFO understands the treaty and understands that it's a constitutionally protected treaty and that we have a responsibility to bring these issues to the commissioner. That way we're not faced with a dispute resolution that goes over 10 years. We're now faced with arbitration. If we had the commissioner, that would have been great.

That's just one example.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish, NS]

You'd see this as a way to skip all of the court proceedings, the filings, all of the years of trying to fact find and all of the stalls in the justice system. You'd be able to go to someone. They would be able to potentially go to the ministers, provincial and federal, and say, “Hey, this is part of the treaty that's been there for the last 30 years. We believe you're not upholding it. There's a problem here, and we need action on that.”

Is that your understanding?