Bill S-13

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

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.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to pay tribute to someone, if I may.

It was with great sadness that we learned that a great advocate for the Métis and a strong advocate for first nations and Inuit indigenous rights, Jim Aldridge, has passed away. He was much more than a lawyer. He was a pillar for Métis and for all indigenous peoples. He was deeply committed to justice, upholding treaty rights and upholding the right to self-determination.

His contribution to indigenous rights, including in relation to modern treaties, will remain etched in our country's legal and social history. He understood that modern treaties are not only legal agreements but also essential tools to build nation-to-nation relationships and to recognize the rights and aspirations of indigenous communities. He has worked passionately to ensure that these treaties are upheld, not only in theory but also in concrete implementation, ensuring that indigenous peoples have the means to thrive within a framework that respects their culture and sovereignty.

During his lifetime, he worked for over 30 years as a lawyer. He argued and fought all the way to the Supreme Court in 2013 for major issues on indigenous rights. He witnessed just two weeks ago the signing of the only modern treaty with the Red River Métis. When Bill S‑13was passed, he saw a side of all of us that is not seen often enough. Unfortunately, he will not be able to give us his testimony on Bill C‑77, but I am convinced that his voice would have enriched our discussions and would have enabled us to better understand the issue.

I am deeply saddened by his absence, as he carried with him wisdom, expertise and humanity that will never be replaced. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois and myself, I would like to offer my deepest condolences to his wife, Guylaine, his children and all those who considered him to be one of their own, a friend, and who had full confidence in him. May our work honour his memory and his commitment to the recognition and respect of the rights of indigenous peoples.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Meegwetch.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Thank you.

Look, Bill C-77 is a bill that was co-developed by modern treaty nations. It's something they've been asking for for over 20 years. This was truly co-developed with the full involvement of all existing modern treaty nations. It is something they have been asking for from the government for the last number of months as we finalized it. We tabled the legislation earlier in the fall.

I appreciate that notwithstanding the deadlock, it seems, in Parliament, the people at this table were able to work across partisan lines. We were able to pass Bill S-16 and Bill S-13. I want to acknowledge and thank the members for that. I think these are critical pieces of legislation, and so are Bill C-77, Bill C-61 and a range of others. We need to unlock Parliament to debate them and have constructive work done. That's why we were all elected to be here. It is transformative work. In fact, one of the challenges we have with some of the historical and numbered treaties is that there is no mechanism of the kind we could have through Bill C-77, so I implore colleagues around the table to work in collaboration. One thing I always pride myself on is being able to reach across the aisle to work with all of you here.

This is not about partisanship. Reconciliation, I've often said, is an intergenerational journey that involves all of us. No one party or government has exclusivity over it. I believe we've done a significant amount of work in that regard. Ultimately, anyone who cares about where this country is going on reconciliation needs to work with us on this.

Interpretation Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, 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.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Minister, similar to Mr. Bittle, I also want to touch on the subject of indigenous languages.

In my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, on the east coast of Vancouver Island it's largely Coast Salish. The dominant language is Hul'q'umi'num. There are certainly variations of that. Then, on the west coast, I have a tiny bit of Nuu-chah-nulth territory.

I know that a lot of the rights related to indigenous languages and their protection and revitalization are confirmed by federal statute, and I know that we have the Official Languages Act. I'm just wondering, first of all, if there was anything you wanted to add to your previous answer to Mr. Bittle.

Also, just on Bill S-13's broad scope, do you have any thoughts on how it's going to specifically interact with some of the provisions in the Official Languages Act? I know that in my communities the preservation of Hul'q'umi'num is very near and dear, and we have only a handful of truly fluent speakers. There are some very serious efforts being made to share that language with the younger generation. We are having success, but there is going to be some assistance required in order to keep this language alive and well for future generations.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Sargent.

Mr. Minister, are there other references, such as established authors of scholarly articles on indigenous issues, who might have said that section 35 isn't enough and that legislation such as Bill S‑13 should be passed?

[Laurie Sargent]

Thank you for your question.

I refer you to the reference to the Quebec Court of Appeal on the constitutionality of the Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families. It wasn't a question of whether to adopt a provision such as the one proposed in Bill S‑13, but rather the importance of having an interpretive provision in the federal legislation. I just want to clarify that it stressed the importance that, as the minister explained, we must be careful to interpret the act in question in a way that is consistent with section 35.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Has any other appellate court ever indicated that a provision such as the one proposed in Bill S‑13 should be adopted?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Minister, with all due respect, I must admit that you didn't convince me earlier. I'm obviously convinced of the importance of respecting the rights and treaties already signed and in force. It's essential that we continue to respect those treaties and indigenous rights. However, I still believe that section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, already provides for that.

You referred me to a British Columbia court ruling, but I believe it's a trial court. Has the Supreme Court ever addressed this issue? Has it already indicated that legislation such as Bill S‑13 should be passed?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Bill S-13 empowers and ensures that aboriginal rights, as safeguarded under the Constitution and as safeguarded under treaties, are given priority and not derogated from or not diminished. It complements some of the work we've done in other respects. I'll take some ownership of this, because I worked on the Indigenous Languages Act when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Heritage in our first Parliament, the 42nd Parliament.

I think in each of these instances, what you're seeing is that rights affirmations, emboldening people, passing legislation and coupling it with resources to embolden people to protect and preserve their culture and their language only bode well for that kind of cultural protection in terms of having this kind of non-derogation clause.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Does Bill S-13 affect indigenous language rights?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Why are bills like Bill S-13 and Bill C-61 important for nation-to-nation, Inuit-Crown and government-to-government relationships with indigenous peoples?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

In the consultations that you had, I understand that there was a very clear majority of stakeholders who were happy with the direction that this bill took.

Could you provide this committee with a little more detail on the nature of the minority views? Were they over the language selection in this amending bill, Bill S-13, or were they a bit broader? I'd like to be informed on the nature of those minority views.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

The answer to that is that I do, absolutely.

What I've heard from indigenous rights holders is that they are very willing to embark upon that kind of consultative exercise. At this point, Bill S-13, as it's currently stipulated and articulated, is what we achieved consensus on, and that's what we're moving forward with.

Going forward, looking at whether further amendments may be necessary to the Interpretation Act to reconcile it with UNDRIP would make a lot of sense. I think that is work that we should actively pursue.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

The UNDRIP Act that we did pass does call to make sure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the declaration. If we're trying to look for a way of making sure that Canada's laws are consistent with the declaration, I think a starting point would actually be through the Interpretation Act.

Now, I can appreciate that maybe it's a little bit too late to put that in the current version of Bill S-13, but do you see a possibility in the future of using the Interpretation Act to make sure that Canada's federal laws are consistent with the declaration, as is called for in the act?