Bill C-29 · 44th Parliament · Justin Trudeau
National Council for Reconciliation Act
An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedJune 22, 2022
- Debated in principleSept. 29, 2022
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberDec. 1, 2022
- Passed the second chamberNov. 30, 2023
- Became lawApril 30, 2024
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Justin TrudeauPrime Minister
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
What it set out to do
On 22 June 2022, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations introduced Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation (National Council for Reconciliation Act), and it was given first reading. Bill C-29 provides for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation as an independent, non-political, permanent and Indigenous-led organization whose purpose is to advance efforts for reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
55% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (1,795 words introduced, 2,596 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill kept its core goal of creating an independent Indigenous-led council to advance reconciliation but added new functions, expanded the preamble, and inserted safeguards on rights and bilateral mechanisms. Over half the text changed through additions that broadened monitoring duties and clarified limits on the council's role.
- Purpose statement was revised to specify reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples.
Before: “The purpose of the Council is to advance efforts for reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.”
After: “The purpose of the Council is to advance reconciliation between Indigenous peoples and non-Indigenous peoples.”
- New clause was added to protect bilateral mechanisms with Indigenous governing bodies.
After: “For greater certainty, if the Government of Canada establishes or has established a bilateral mechanism with an Indigenous governing body, that bilateral mechanism is not affected by this Act.”
- Functions section was expanded with new duties on post-apology progress, rights-based approaches, and language services.
Before: “In carrying out its purpose, the Council is to (a) develop and implement a multi-year national action plan to advance its efforts for reconciliation;”
After: “In carrying out its purpose, the Council is to (a) monitor, evaluate and report annually on the Government of Canada's post-apology progress towards reconciliation, to ensure that government accountability for reconciling the relationship between Indigenous peoples and the Crown is maintained in the coming years;”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The Act uses many defined terms, exact numbers for board size and terms, and enumerated functions, but relies on phrases like 'to the extent possible' and 'relevant' that require judgment. This creates clear rules for structure and some reporting while leaving room for argument over scope and compliance.
Open to argument
“to the extent possible”
This subjective qualifier appears in representativeness and gender diversity rules, inviting debate over whether a given board meets the standard.“all the information it judges relevant”
The protocol standard turns on the Council's own assessment rather than an objective list or test.“any other appropriate order”
The Federal Court remedy uses an open-ended term that depends on judicial discretion rather than fixed outcomes.“knowledge and experience with respect to matters related to Indigenous peoples”
This broad criterion for directors lacks measurable thresholds or required credentials.
Clear-cut
“a minimum of nine and a maximum of 13 directors”
The board size is fixed by clear numerical limits.“At least two thirds of the directors must be Indigenous persons”
The composition rule uses an exact fraction rather than a qualitative standard.“within six months after the day on which the Council is incorporated”
The protocol deadline is anchored to a specific event and calendar period.
Discretion. The Minister must develop a disclosure protocol and file annual reports, but the Council itself decides what information is relevant and can seek court declarations if the Minister fails to comply.
Challenging the law itself. The Act creates an independent corporation and imposes duties mainly on the Minister and the Council itself, with limited direct impact on private persons or clear Charter rights engaged.
Disputing a charge under it. A claim that the Minister failed to meet disclosure or reporting duties can be taken to Federal Court for a declaration, but the 'appropriate order' language and relevance standard allow factual disputes over adequacy.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.