Bill S-250, the proposed Indigenous Rights Statement Act, would amend the Department of Justice Act. Its stated goal is to give Parliament information about possible effects of government bills on Indigenous rights and their consistency with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). These are proposed provisions, not law; if enacted, they would start on the first anniversary of royal assent.
The Minister of Justice would have to table a statement for each bill introduced or presented in either House by a minister or another representative of the Crown.
Each statement would have to describe potential effects on Charter rights and freedoms, potential effects on rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and whether the bill is consistent with UNDRIP.
If the statement identifies potential effects on section 35 rights, it would also have to give a detailed summary of consultations with the Indigenous peoples who hold those rights, or say that no consultations took place.
The bill defines “Indigenous peoples” for these requirements by reference to the definition in section 35(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Parliamentarians: They would receive statements about potential rights effects and UNDRIP consistency for covered bills. The bill does not say that a statement approves a bill or decides whether it is lawful.
Indigenous peoples: For bills whose statements identify potential effects on section 35 rights, the statement would have to report on consultations or say none took place. The bill does not itself require consultation before a bill is introduced.
Government: The Minister of Justice would have a new duty to arrange for the statements to be tabled. The requirement applies to bills introduced or presented by a minister or another Crown representative, not all bills.
General public: The bill would not itself change section 35 rights, create a right to consent to legislation, or require every bill to go through a consultation process. Its main change is a reporting duty.
The bill does not explain how the government would assess “potential effects” or whether any particular method or standard must be used.
It does not explain how the government would assess whether a bill is consistent with UNDRIP.
It does not set a process for identifying which Indigenous peoples hold affected rights, or how the statements would address disagreements about that.
The supplied material does not include the Department of Justice Act, so the existing wording of section 4.2 and its interaction with the proposed changes could not be independently checked.
A possible argument for the bill is that Parliament would receive information about possible effects on section 35 rights, rather than only Charter rights.
Requiring a report on consultations—or a clear statement that none took place—could make the government’s consultation record more visible to parliamentarians.
Requiring a statement on UNDRIP consistency could give Parliament another way to consider Indigenous rights when examining government bills.
The bill requires statements, but does not require consultation before a bill is introduced or require the government to change a bill based on the statement.
The bill does not set methods or standards for assessing potential effects or UNDRIP consistency. Different statements could therefore provide different levels of detail.
A statement reporting that consultations took place does not, by itself, establish that they were adequate. The bill’s preamble also says that presenting a statement does not relieve the government of its duty to consult.