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

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I'll go to Chief Frost.

Part of the clarification piece in this act says, “For greater certainty, a review or performance audit provided for in this Act is not a substitute for a dispute resolution process provided for in a modern treaty, an agreement referred to in section 3 or an Act that implements a modern treaty.”

I share the sentiments of my colleague, Mr. Schmale, about the actual power of this bill and this office. Again, I wholeheartedly agree with the challenges of every first nation and modern treaty holder, which were stated here today and beyond. However, I'm still having trouble with what the power is and what will change.

In five years, if this office turns out reports like the Auditor General does—because I believe it's structured principally in the same way—and if there's no ability to act on these things and hold the government to account, how are you going to feel if that's the case?

[Chief Pauline Frost]

Let's think about it this way: Bill C-10 was co-drafted. Because we co-drafted it, we commit to being partners with Canada.

Our agreements require us to review our agreements every five years around efficiencies. In reviewing those agreements, we also identify the flaws. With regard to implementation, efficiencies and clarification, as you highlighted, those need to come from our partnership arrangement. We don't ever want to get caught in litigation. The most effective way to resolve disputes is by having partner-to-partner conversations. Modern treaty implementation allows for that to happen.

I'll turn to Brianna. Maybe she has a direct answer to that question with respect to litigation.

As self-governing modern treaties in the Yukon, we have 11 of the 26, so we have 30 years of experience. We've had many opportunities to resolve disputes, and we try to do it in a Crown-indigenous relationship conversation without going to the courts to find dispute, because that's costly. It takes years. It takes time and resources, and it takes away resources from our own people in implementing program services. We don't want to do that. We want to look at a process that works effectively.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

I do share your sentiment, even with the historic numbered treaties across Canada all the way through the Maritimes and the north—each coast. I want to stay out of litigation, but I still fail to see how this changes the path of staying out of litigation, quite frankly. That's just my personal opinion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much.

We're going to go to Jaime for up to three minutes.

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

I think one of the things we can all agree on here is that when we're talking about treaties, whether they're modern, numbered or historic, they're all protected by the Constitution of Canada. Section 35 of the Constitution recognizes and affirms all existing treaties. Section 52 of the Constitution of Canada goes further to say that the Constitution is the supreme law of Canada, above any laws made by provincial governments or municipal governments that are inconsistent with it.

When we talk about studies and parliamentary reports and compare them to the treaty rights, I think those are two completely separate conversations. I understand this as looking at the constitutional basis for this country's existence and an approach by the modern treaty commissioners and modern treaty nations to say, “We need a tool to ensure that these constitutional rights are upheld.” I think that's a vastly different argument than housing, policing and other things around health.

Would you agree that we can't be looking at the implementation of treaties in the same context as the administration of the Indian Act?

[Brianne Paulin]

Thank you for the question.

Yes, absolutely. The Indian Act doesn't apply to modern treaty groups.

I think that's the issue. The federal system is just not set up, frankly, to implement treaties. There are over 8,000 obligations in these agreements, and they cut across all departments. The accountability that I will bring—and to MP Morin's earlier question—is that whenever there's an issue with interpretation or implementation of an obligation, there's no other choice but to turn to litigation dispute resolution. However, if we have a separate, independent commissioner who can provide their views on what this obligation means, what the treaty means, that provides another avenue to avoid having to go to dispute litigation, which is really not to the benefit of anyone. It's very costly.

To answer your question a bit more broadly than I think you intended, yes, I agree about the Indian Act—it doesn't apply. Also, the commissioner is really there to ensure that those modern treaties are fully implemented as intended.

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

I see President Clayton nodding her head.

Would you you agree with the overall context of that question?

[Eva Clayton]

Yes.

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

Chief Sunshine, I don't know if I have much time, but if the modern-day treaty commissioner proves to be effective at implementing treaty rights for those nations, would you not see this as an innovative approach that other nations could look at?

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

You have about 15 seconds.

[Chief Sheldon Sunshine]

Thank you for the question.

I would remind the government that while that might work for modern-day treaties that deal with modern-day legislation and policy, we have to go back to the signing of a treaty and the understanding of what that is, what that means to us. These are two different things.

We're afraid of having a two-tiered treaty system, where we have the modern treaties with their commissioner instituting the agreement that.... The negotiations took a long time, and they're fixed and capped. When we're talking about historic treaties, treaties 1 through 11, those are separate, distinct treaties that have to be taken in that context.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you. Again, feel free to follow up in writing. The study will go on for a little bit, so feel free to respond to questions further or to send in written briefs on stuff you think may help this committee. I really appreciate all of your testimony. It was very good.

Thank you to our committee members.

Very quickly, before I ask for adjournment, I'd like to ask the following questions of the committee as they relate to the approval of two budgets. They have been circulated to the committee.

A budget has been prepared for the study of Bill C-10 in the amount of $56,400. I need someone to move the motion.

[An hon. member]

I so move.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

(Motion agreed to)

I have one more. A budget has been prepared and circulated for the study of issues related to the Indian Act registration in the amount of $58,600.

[An hon. member]

I so move.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

(Motion agreed to)

I need permission to adjourn.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much. We're adjourned.