Bill C-37 · 37th Parliament · Jean Chrétien
Claim Settlements (Alberta and Saskatchewan) Implementation Act
An Act to facilitate the implementation of those provisions of first nations' claim settlements in the Provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan that relate to the creation of reserves or the addition of land to existing reserves, and to make related amendments to the Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act and the Saskatchewan Treaty Land Entitlement Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedOct. 17, 2001
- Debated in principleOct. 22, 2001
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberDec. 3, 2001
- Passed the second chamberFeb. 19, 2002
- Became lawMarch 21, 2002
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Jean ChrétienPrime 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.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
53% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (2,882 words introduced, 2,650 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill passed with the addition of the royal assent date and completion of a sentence on confirmation of agreements, plus a new subsection on non-application. Minor wording fixes and structural adjustments account for the 53% text change while preserving the core framework for reserve creation under claim settlements.
- Added royal assent date to the long title.
After: “[Assented to 21st March, 2002]”
- Completed sentence on confirmation of other agreements.
Before: “the agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Saskatchewan referred to in paragraph (b) is hereby con- firmed an”
After: “the agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Saskatchewan referred to in paragraph (b) is hereby con- firmed and shall take effect according to its terms.”
- Added new subsection on non-application of the section.
After: “Non-application of this section (4) If (a) an agreement is entered into with one or more Indian”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The Act relies on defined terms cross-referencing the Indian Act and ties most powers to specific agreements and council resolutions. A few provisions still use open-ended ministerial judgment.
Open to argument
“and in such regional offices of that Department and other places as the Minister considers advisable”
Uses a subjective standard rather than an objective list or criterion.
Clear-cut
“Sections 39, 40 and 41 of the Indian Act apply in respect of a designation under subsection (1), any references to the Governor in Council being read as references to the Minister”
Directly incorporates existing statutory sections with a clear substitution rule.“The Minister may, in accordance with an agreement to which this Act applies, set apart as a reserve any lands the title to which is vested in Her Majesty in right of Canada”
Power is expressly limited to lands and agreements meeting the Act's defined criteria.“for a period not exceeding one year or, with the consent of the council of the first nation, for any longer period”
Sets a numerical default and an objective consent trigger for extension.
Discretion. The Minister decides whether to set lands apart, where to deposit agreements, whether to accept designations, and the length of permits beyond one year, all subject to first-nation resolutions and the terms of the underlying agreements.
Challenging the law itself. Defined terms, cross-references to the Indian Act, and agreement-based triggers leave little room for a successful vagueness or overbreadth argument under s. 7 of the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. Disputes would centre on whether a resolution was passed, an agreement term satisfied, or ministerial acceptance occurred before lands were set apart, all factual questions rather than open-ended standards.
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.