Nisg̱a’a Nation President Eva Clayton speaks in Nisg̱a’a Lisims Government House on June 23, 2025. ‘We have been waiting for more than 20 years for this,’ she says about new federal legislation to appoint an independent treaty commissioner. Photo courtesy Government of B.C./Flickr
This story was originally published by Windspeaker.com here and is reprinted with minor style edits.
More than two decades after modern treaty leaders first began calling for independent oversight, they are now urging Parliament to move forward on Bill C-10 — an Act respecting the Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation.
After second reading in the House of Commons, Bill C-10 moved forward Feb. 9 when the House referred the bill to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs (INAN). The legislation is now under review by INAN, as witnesses appeared in “Ottawa” on Feb. 26 to testify.
Leaders say the Act would finally close a long-standing accountability gap in how “Canada” lives up to its commitments in the constitutionally protected agreements.
“This is not a partisan issue, and every party should want to know whether Canada is fulfilling its constitutional obligations,” said Eva Clayton, president of the Nisga’a Nation and co-chair of the Land Claims Agreements Coalition, in an interview.
Clayton has spent much of her career navigating the gap between what “Canada” promises in modern treaties and what happens once the ink dries.
Now, she is watching Parliament debate what treaty partners describe as a missing piece in the country’s constitutional machinery: the appointment of an independent commissioner for modern treaty implementation reporting directly to Parliament.
“The challenge in implementing modern treaties is not the lack of goodwill,” Clayton said.
“It is a systemic lack of awareness, understanding, and action within the federal system that has persisted for decades.”
Modern treaties are those negotiated since 1975, and cover roughly 45 per cent of the country’s land and sea mass, including much of the North.
Their implementation spans more than 8,000 obligations across roughly 30 federal departments, covering about 26 treaties and more than 90 Indigenous communities — a level of complexity some leaders say the federal system wasn’t designed to manage.
Clayton noted that while the auditor general has examined Indigenous issues broadly, only three reviews in 26 years have focused on modern treaty implementation.
Feds ‘not equipped to implement our agreements’
For Clayton, the stakes are both structural and deeply personal.
The Nisga’a Final Agreement came into effect on May 11, 2000, after decades of negotiation.
She said her nation “compromised a lot” to secure the certainty the treaty promised, including relinquishing ownership of more than 90 per cent of Nisga’a traditional territory in exchange for ownership of 10 per cent and a defined relationship with the Crown.
That certainty, however, has not always translated into consistent implementation.
“Soon after we entered into our treaties, we realized that the federal government was not equipped to implement our agreements in a timely and effective manner,” Clayton said, adding that some departments, including Fisheries and Oceans, continue to disregard constitutionally protected Nisga’a rights.
Among witnesses testifying in “Ottawa” last month was John Alan Jack, elected chief councillor of the Huu-ay-aht First Nation and a leader within the Maa-nulth multi-nation modern treaty on “Vancouver Island.”
The Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement came into effect on April 1, 2011.
“One thing I did appreciate [from attending the INAN review] was that it was supported by almost every party,” Jack said, noting that only the Conservatives, in the role of official opposition, were against.
An earlier version of the legislation, Bill C-77, reached a similar stage before dying on the order paper in early 2025. Bill C-10 is identical.
“Seeing it get to this stage makes me feel a little more hopeful that it’ll actually get to third reading and adoption,” he said.
“That’s something that we think is going to be critical for the state of modern treaties in Canada.”
Sayaač̓atḥ (John Alan Jack), Chief Councillor of Huu-ay-aht First Nation, speaks about Bill C-10 at the Parliamentary Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs in ‘Ottawa’ on Feb. 26. Screengrab courtesy Parliament of Canada
‘We’ve come a long way’
Jack has served in Huu-ay-aht governance since 2009, including through the nation’s transition out of the Indian Act and into modern treaty governance.
“One of our hereditary leaders, Tommy Happynook, took the Indian Act, printed it out, and then burned it on the steps of our Great Hall to symbolize the fact that we’re no longer under the Indian Act,” Jack said.
“We’re responsible to ourselves, and that ability to make decisions for ourselves is the foundation for making a better life.”
Still, Jack said the shift to treaty governance did not eliminate implementation challenges.
As ministers and officials rotate through departments, Huu-ay-aht leaders often find themselves re-explaining the treaty’s legal framework, slowing progress on obligations already written into law.
Modern treaties often require co-ordination across departments, such as Fisheries, Justice and Finance, and Jack said a commissioner’s office could help embed treaty literacy across government.
“We lose a lot of time and resources on re-educating different political leaders … on the nature of the treaty,” he explained.
“If we’re able to put this in the back of everyone’s mind — the same way everyone [thinks] about budgeting — we’d be able to make progress so much faster.”
Still, he said the broader trajectory for Huu-ay-aht remains positive.
“If we zoom out … and look at the full history of First Nations under the Indian Act, we’ve come a long way in 15 years compared to the 150 that came before it,” he said.
“That’s what drives the continued optimism within the community and our government.”
‘An internal accountability loop’
At committee, some MPs questioned whether Bill C-10 contains sufficient enforcement authority, suggesting the commissioner may lack “teeth.”
“I think accountability measures in a Westminster system are many and varied,” Jack said.
“But they very rarely result directly from decision-making by an independent agent of Parliament.”
Instead, the commissioner would establish facts and issue recommendations while keeping treaty partners informed.
“First Nations and other self-governing Indigenous bodies would be informed as to the process and the preliminary findings,” he said.
“That involvement helps us create an internal accountability loop that hopefully can help us circumvent things like court cases.”
Public reports, he added, would bring ministers, opposition parties, and the media into the accountability process.
“That’s the big thing. It’s meant to help save time and money by providing enough leverage for negotiations … rather than having to go through a court case,” Jack said.
“Why don’t you skip all the middlemen and actually go and negotiate?”
Other testimony highlighted the scope of the bill.
Chief Sheldon Sunshine of the Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation in “Alberta” cautioned MPs against treating Bill C-10 as a template for historic or numbered treaties, noting modern and historic agreements occupy different legal terrain.
Jack agreed the distinction matters.
“Modern treaties were negotiated in a more comprehensive and whole-of-government format,” Jack said, contrasting them with historic treaties negotiated under far different power relationships.
“We do know that our agreements were made, hopefully, in a more enlightened age,” he said.
“We give nothing but support to our numbered treaty cousins … and that’s something that needs to be addressed by those Nations on behalf of their people.”
K’ómoks First Nation Chief Nicole Rempel says modern treaties are essential to her community’s ‘long-term economic future,’ and supports appointing an independent federal commissioner. Photo courtesy Nicole Rempel
‘Living, active reconciliation’
Other modern treaty leaders echoed similar concerns during the Feb. 26 hearing.
Chief Nicole Rempel of K’ómoks First Nation called modern treaties “the foundation of our governance model, our stewardship responsibilities, and our long-term economic future,” and said an independent commissioner could help address implementation disputes before they escalate.
Chief Louise Nattawappio of the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach described repeatedly educating federal officials that the Naskapi are self-governing treaty holders while facing delays even where obligations are clear.
Capacity also surfaced in questioning from Conservative MP Billy Morin, a former chief of the Enoch Cree Nation (of Treaty 6), who asked whether a reported $2-million start-up budget would be sufficient for the office.
Rempel said it would not solve every issue but would be a start.
Jack said modern treaties ultimately provide the certainty needed for long-term planning and economic growth.
“Modern treaties are one of the best examples of living, active reconciliation in Canada,” he said. “That certainty creates stability, and that stability is the best rock for economic development.
“We should support those Nations that decide, through treaty, to become a closer part of B.C. and a closer part of Canada.”
Clayton said accountability is what turns treaty promises into lasting certainty.
“All Parliamentarians have a role to play in holding government accountable to the promises made in modern treaties … [and] this is the accountability within the federal government that Bill C-10 will provide [that] has been missing for far too long,” she said.
“We have been waiting for more than 20 years for this.”
The post Modern treaties law would hold feds ‘accountable to the promises’ made to First Nations, say chiefs appeared first on Indiginews.
From Indiginews via This RSS Feed.