Single Rule to Uphold Indigenous Rights

Summary#

This bill changes how federal laws are read. It adds a single rule in the Interpretation Act that says all Acts and regulations must be read as supporting (upholding) the Aboriginal and treaty rights of Indigenous peoples under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and not limiting or taking them away (abrogating or derogating). It also deletes similar clauses scattered across 27 federal laws so there is one consistent rule.

• Creates a general interpretation rule for all federal laws to uphold section 35 rights (Bill: Interpretation Act, after s.8.2).
• Defines “Indigenous peoples” by reference to section 35(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982 (Bill: Interpretation Act, after s.8.2(2)).
• Repeals non-derogation clauses in 27 Acts (e.g., Fisheries Act s.2.3; Firearms Act s.2(3); Impact Assessment Act s.3) to avoid overlap.
• Updates the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act to use the new standard wording (replaces s.5(2) and adds s.5(3)).
• Includes coordinating amendments so similar clauses in Bills C-21, C-35, and C-49 are removed if those bills become law.
• Makes no new programs; it sets an interpretation rule for courts and regulators.

What it means for you#

• Households

  • No direct changes to services, taxes, or benefits. This is an interpretation rule that guides how federal laws are applied.

• Indigenous peoples (First Nations, Inuit, Métis)

  • Federal laws and regulations must be read in a way that supports section 35 rights and does not limit them (Bill: Interpretation Act, after s.8.2(1)).
  • The bill does not change the Constitution or define new rights; it standardizes how existing rights are respected across all Acts.
  • In areas like fisheries, wildlife, lands, energy, and transport, decisions must consider this rule when they affect section 35 rights (repeals of prior clauses consolidate this into one rule).

• Businesses and project developers

  • Federal approvals (e.g., impact assessments, energy regulation, navigable waters) will continue to require attention to section 35 rights, now under a single, general rule rather than many Act-specific clauses (repeals in Impact Assessment Act s.3; Canadian Energy Regulator Act s.3; Canadian Navigable Waters Act s.2.2).
  • Expect regulators to document how decisions “uphold” section 35 rights. This could affect permitting timelines and consultation steps. Timing and extent: Data unavailable.

• Federal departments and regulators

  • Must apply the new Interpretation Act rule across all statutes and regulations (Bill: Interpretation Act, after s.8.2).
  • Need to update policies, guidance, forms, and training to reflect the centralized clause. Implementation dates: Data unavailable.
  • Specific Acts lose their own clauses, so staff will rely on the Interpretation Act instead (e.g., Fisheries Act s.2.3 repealed; Oceans Act s.2.1 repealed).

• Courts and legal practitioners

  • Will apply a single, positive formulation (“upholding” rights) rather than varied non-derogation clauses. This may change arguments about statutory purpose in cases involving section 35 (Bill: Interpretation Act, after s.8.2(1)).
  • The Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act now mirrors this wording directly (s.5(2)–(3)).

• Provinces, territories, and municipalities

  • No direct obligations, but where they interact with federal processes (e.g., joint reviews or permits), the federal interpretation rule will frame decisions.

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• Appropriations in the bill: None stated (Bill text).
• New fees or revenues: Data unavailable.
• Administrative costs for training, guidance updates, and litigation risk: Data unavailable.
• Official fiscal note: Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Creates clarity and consistency by replacing dozens of differing clauses with one rule that applies to all Acts and regulations, reducing confusion for officials, courts, and the public (repeals across 27 Acts; Bill: Interpretation Act, after s.8.2).
• Strengthens protection by using a positive duty to read laws as “upholding” section 35 rights, not only avoiding harm, which guides decision-makers toward rights-compatible outcomes (Bill: Interpretation Act, after s.8.2(1)).
• Avoids gaps: even if an Act lacks its own clause, the Interpretation Act rule automatically applies to it and to its regulations (Bill: Interpretation Act, after s.8.2).
• Aligns federal statutes with Canada’s commitments to reconciliation and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples framework by standardizing respect for section 35 across sectors such as fisheries, energy, wildlife, and transport (repeals in Fisheries Act s.2.3; Canadian Energy Regulator Act s.3; Canada Wildlife Act s.2(3); Canadian Navigable Waters Act s.2.2).
• Reduces redundancy by removing overlapping clauses while preserving their effect through the Interpretation Act, limiting technical disputes about which clause governs (multiple repeals cited above).

Opponents' View#

• Legal uncertainty: the verb “upholding” could be read to imply positive obligations beyond non-interference, inviting more litigation over the scope of duties and delaying decisions (Bill: Interpretation Act, after s.8.2(1)).
• Implementation risk: removing tailored clauses from sectoral laws (e.g., Impact Assessment Act s.3; Firearms Act s.2(3)) may erase context that helped regulators apply section 35 in specific regimes, increasing short-term confusion.
• Project delays: added scrutiny to show how decisions “uphold” rights may lengthen permitting and regulatory processes in energy, fisheries, and transport; cost and timeline impacts: Data unavailable.
• Limited practical change: courts already presume Parliament does not limit constitutional rights without clear words, so critics may see the bill as symbolic while still adding process burden (Bill: Interpretation Act, after s.8.2; general principle).
• Coordination complexity: conditional repeals tied to Bills C-21, C-35, and C-49 could create transitional uncertainty about which clauses apply and when, depending on in-force dates (Coordinating Amendments).