Bill C-10 · 45th Parliament · Mark Carney
Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation Act
An Act respecting the Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation
Government bill. Still before Parliament.
- IntroducedSept. 25, 2025
- Debated in principleFeb. 9, 2026
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberSept. 21, 2026
- Passed the second chamberNot reached
- Became lawNot reached
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Mark CarneyPrime 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 25 September 2025, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations introduced Bill C-10, An Act respecting the Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation (Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation Act) and it was given first reading. Bill C-10 provides for the appointment of a Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation to conduct reviews and performance audits of the activities of government institutions related to the implementation of modern treaties. It also establishes the Office of the Commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation for the purpose of assisting the Commissioner in the fulfillment of their mandate and the exercise of their powers and the performance of their duties and functions. Finally, it makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
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
Only laws are compared, introduced against passed.
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill uses many subjective phrases that let the Commissioner decide what counts as appropriate or necessary. Defined terms and references to existing statutes provide some fixed boundaries, but the operative powers remain open-ended.
Open to argument
“any review or performance audit that the Commissioner considers appropriate”
Replaces an objective test with the Commissioner's personal judgment on scope.“any information, reports and explanations that the Commissioner considers necessary”
Leaves the threshold for compelled disclosure to the Commissioner's opinion rather than a statutory standard.“that is, in the opinion of the Commissioner, of such pressing urgency or importance”
Determines when a special report may bypass the annual cycle solely by subjective assessment.“the Commissioner has discretion to determine the procedures to be followed and the manner in which their powers are to be exercised”
Grants broad procedural autonomy without statutory limits or criteria.
Clear-cut
“government institution means any entity named in Schedule I, I.1, II or III to the Financial Administration Act”
Uses an existing statutory list rather than an open-ended category.“appointed in accordance with the Public Service Employment Act”
Ties staffing to a pre-existing, detailed statutory regime.
Discretion. The Commissioner alone sets priorities, procedures, audit topics, information demands and the timing of special reports, while the Minister and institutions must negotiate joint protocols when information is withheld.
Challenging the law itself. The Act creates an oversight office rather than imposing direct limits on individuals, so a facial Charter challenge under section 7 or 8 would face standing and ripeness hurdles.
Disputing a charge under it. Government institutions can dispute what information is truly 'necessary' through the mandatory joint-protocol discussions before any enforcement step occurs.
Read by a language model from the as introduced text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
Only laws in force for two years or more are checked.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.