Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 12th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Could you hear online? You could. I'm getting nodding heads online too.

[Duane Gastant' Aucoin]

I could hear both at the same time, English and French. It was hard.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

We're going to start again, just to make it clear.

Go ahead, please.

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

Mr. Chair, if Councillor Aucoin is hearing both languages at the same time, I would like someone to help him so he can hear only the one he wants to hear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

We'll wait for one moment. Let's have the technician do a little test.

You can hear it. Okay.

Go ahead, Madame Gill.

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

It's better to understand than just to hear.

Grand Chief Murdoch, Councillor Aucoin and Professor Wright, thank you very much for being here. This is the final hour of our discussion on Bill C‑10.

Professor Wright summed it up very well: We are ready. All of the parties have been heard, and if the government were to introduce amendments, it would be dismantling what has already been built.

During our previous meeting, we talked about how different departments are going to interpret the treaties differently, which will cause problems and delays. I'd like to hear from each of you on this: How can the commissioner help ensure that each treaty is interpreted consistently?

Grand Chief Murdoch, what do you think?

[Grand Chief Paul John Murdoch]

I'll try to answer that.

You've touched on the biggest challenge we face, which is the fact that every department and every new government will have a different interpretation. In my work, I've always found that education is the most important aspect, even for my own people. Too often, treaties are signed, shelved and forgotten. People get caught up in the urgency of the moment.

An independent commissioner will help us address that challenge with respect to education. We commented on the new commissioner's qualifications, and that's reflected here. The person chosen must be someone who is aware of the general context, not just isolated issues or what's going on in one department. That is what will really help us meet the challenge of the educational obligation that's incumbent on all the parties concerned.

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

Thank you.

Councillor Aucoin, go ahead. Then, Mr. Wright can answer as well.

[Duane Gastant' Aucoin]

Thank you. I'm sorry, but I only know a little bit of French. I speak very bon Frenglish.

My dad never spoke it around the house.

When it comes to the different interpretations by different departments, this is a fundamental flaw that currently exists within the Government of Canada. Our treaty is with the Crown, and we constantly remind them of that. Our treaty is not with Indian affairs. Our treaty is not with Indigenous Services. Our treaty is with the Crown, with all the departments, with all of the government.

A modern treaty commissioner would help bridge the gap and help get the departments thinking with that mindset. It would get the Prime Minister and the cabinet on board as well. They need to work with us as equal partners—and it's not just the letter of the law but the spirit and intent of the treaties as well.

Thank you very much.

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

Thank you.

[David V. Wright]

I won't add a whole lot to what's been said, because those are excellent points, but I have three very quick points.

First, the beauty of institutions is that they can withstand shifting political winds. One of the key roles of this commissioner would be to provide consistency: consistent attention to the matters and consistent interpretation of the matters.

The second bit I would add is that the access to information powers under clause 24 of Bill C-10 are almost identical to those of the Office of the Auditor General. This means that you're going to generate a body of information that then crystallizes in the form of recommendations and reports that are unparalleled and, essentially, bulletproof.

There's a process at the end of any of these performance audits called “substantiation”. It's what keeps auditors up at night. This is because every sentence in any of these reports is substantiated to the nth degree. You can imagine how, deep within the system, there are four, five, six or 10 different pieces of information that substantiate what's being said in a sentence. This can help everybody understand the truth and the facts. It can help departments have a common view on the subject matter and foil any kinds of different interpretations or inconsistencies.

The last thing I would say is that you can't manage what you don't measure. The ability to generate this kind of information means that information and measurement will be that much better so that the government can better manage modern treaty implementation.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Now we will go to MP Morin, please, for five minutes.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of our guests here today.

Professor Wright, you were saying that there's inconsistency when it comes to politics, so this body might help with that. That was what you mentioned. Is that right?

I'm going to take it into a bit of a forward-thinking context. In Alberta, we're facing a separation movement. The treaty chiefs are fighting back, but we have no commissioner.

My question is for Grand Chief Murdoch.

What is your position on Quebec separatism, and how would this commissioner position assist in having the voices of the nations heard there?

[Grand Chief Paul John Murdoch]

That's a big question.

Well, who's speaking for whom? That's our biggest problem. We don't allow Canada to unilaterally speak for us, which is why we're being complimentary today because that was not the approach taken. We would not allow the Government of Quebec to unilaterally speak for us, either.

We had an issue recently with the Quebec constitution that's being adopted, and this is the message that we were trying to send. They're not independent of one another.

You had premiers like René Lévesque, Lucien Bouchard and Bernard Landry. They were staunch separatists during their time, but they did exemplary things in highlighting and protecting indigenous rights. There's a difference between being a separatist or a sovereignist and being an isolationist. This seems to be the distinction we're seeing today.

I hope a commissioner would help underline the fact that there is an indigenous-federal relationship that the provincial governments cannot ignore, and vice versa. The provincial relationships are being built up.

It's going to be one more example to help provincial governments understand that they cannot embark on these things in a unilateral way.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Thank you for your answer.

You mentioned that you didn't agree with everything in this process, when this legislation was being drafted. However, you said that you did agree with some things, and they were implemented.

What were the things you didn't agree with?

[Paul John Murdoch]

We had some suggestions in our submission back in June, and they were related to wording. It was quite technical. As an attorney—and I guess I'm not supposed to be practising now; you're not supposed to be representing yourself.... Technical wording wasn't retained. To be honest, I prefer much simpler language than adding words unnecessarily. That was the recommendation.

I believe you had other first nations recommending exactly that, which was to keep the legislation simple. I'm glad you followed their advice and not ours at the time.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Okay.

For Professor Wright, I'm going to do myself a bit of a disservice, because I support modern treaties. I might come off as against them with this question, and it might be a bit more of a philosophical one.

The federal government has 30 departments, give or take, whatever the number is there. There are over 300,000 employees. How would a commissioner make meaningful changes on one or two audits a year? You mentioned it too. The system is slow.

How can this commissioner make a dent in having the first nations being heard in a system like that? Should one ministry or one actual position be considered?

What do you think? Can you give me some context on that?

[David V. Wright]

It's no small task. The first thing is that the commissioner is the missing piece in this whole-of-government approach. The federal government has come a long way, particularly in the last 12 to 15 years, in creating an ecosystem of mechanisms, tools, forums and so on for modern treaty implementation. This includes explicitly, for example, in the modern treaty implementation policy, education across departments for employees.

An example of the role the commissioner might play is following up to make sure that kind of culture change in education across departments is actually happening. It exists on paper in the modern treaty implementation policy. It's going to be hard for Teslin Tlingit, for example, to bring litigation under the policy. It's just a policy. However, the commissioner would be able to shine a light on areas that litigation can't. One example would be education and the shift across departments.

If I may, I will build on this with another example, and this may take us in a slightly different direction for other questions. There is going to be an unprecedented amount of activity north of 60 degrees latitude in Canada, which, of course, is almost entirely modern treaty territory. It's not entirely, but almost entirely.

This is going to involve a number of government departments that have not typically been deeply involved in modern treaty implementation. Not to point fingers too sharply, but the Department of National Defence is going to have to learn really quickly about modern treaties, how implementation is going, how poorly it's going and how to do things right from the outset. The body of information that the commissioner will generate will help with this.

Will it happen as quickly as everybody wants? No. It's not possible, but bit by bit, report by report, a body of information will build up. It'll build up faster than people think, and before you know it, there will be a significant improvement that hasn't been seen to date.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much.

We have MP Earle for five minutes.

[Philip Earle, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm going to be sharing my time with MP Lori Idlout.

I want to direct my question to Executive Councillor Aucoin.

Thank you for your testimony to the committee this morning.

I observed that you had court interaction with previous administrations. You highlighted that Bill C-10 and the modern treaty commissioner, for you, are about helping to improve people's lives. I believe that's exactly why, as members of Parliament, we are here. It's to improve people's lives.

In light of the testimony you provided this morning, do you see Bill C-10, and the eventual appointment of a commissioner, interpreting the modern treaties, or will that role avoid lengthy disputes and court action by indigenous partners?

[Duane Gastant' Aucoin]

Thank you.

In the Yukon Umbrella Final Agreement, we have a dispute resolution mechanism. Unfortunately, all parties have to agree to initiate it. This is why it has never been used. A modern treaty commissioner would help bridge any differences between the Crown and Yukon first nations so that we can work out those differences.

We took Canada to court in 2018, when the judge came down and ruled. It can't be one-sided. It can't just be the Crown and Canada saying take it or leave it. It has to be true negotiations in good faith. I think the modern treaty commissioner would help be a bridge so that both sides can meet and come to a common ground that we can agree upon. Then we can avoid going to court and work this out nation to nation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Go ahead, Lori.

[Lori Idlout, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you so much.

First of all, I want to thank MP Earle for sharing his time with me. This is such an important study.

We've been hearing about gaps in ensuring that the honour of the Crown is being upheld. Other than the courts, what mechanisms are there to make sure that the honour of the Crown is upheld?

Maybe we can start with you, Paul John Murdoch.

[Grand Chief Paul John Murdoch]

We've used courts and economic pressures. We've used international campaigns and international forums. Court was one of many tools we used when we were at the lowest of our relationship. There's a wide variety. The most effective, unfortunately, were usually economic pressures.