Bill C-54 · 38th Parliament · Paul Martin
First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act
An Act to provide first nations with the option of managing and regulating oil and gas exploration and exploitation and of receiving moneys otherwise held for them by Canada
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedJune 1, 2005
- Debated in principleOct. 6, 2005
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberNov. 21, 2005
- Passed the second chamberNov. 24, 2005
- Became lawNov. 25, 2005
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Paul MartinPrime 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
60% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (8,464 words introduced, 8,262 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill received royal assent with formal updates to its header, including the assent date and chapter number, while the core purpose and most provisions remained intact. Some sections on ministerial information provision were completed or slightly expanded in the final statute.
- Header changed from first reading details to royal assent and chapter citation.
Before: “FIRST READING, JUNE 1, 2005 THE MINISTER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT 90317 RECOMMENDATION”
After: “ASSENTED TO 25th NOVEMBER, 2005 BILL C-54”
- Added statutes of Canada designation and chapter number.
After: “STATUTES OF CANADA 2005 CHAPTER 48”
- Completed the list of documents to be provided by the Minister.
Before: “(b) copies of any documents in the Minister's possession respecting contracts referred to in paragraph (a) that relate to periods after the issuance of those contracts;”
After: “(b) copies of any documents in the Minister's possession respecting contracts referred to in paragraph (a) that relate to periods after the issuance of those contracts; (c) particulars of all moneys payable under contracts referred to in paragraph (a);”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill uses many exact definitions and fixed dollar limits that make core rules clear. It also leaves several key choices to opinions and future regulations that invite argument.
Open to argument
“ought not to be assessed, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, for reasons of national security”
The exemption turns on a subjective ministerial view rather than an objective test.“will, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, have insignificant environmental effects”
Again the trigger is an opinion rather than measurable criteria.“Subject to the regulations, oil and gas laws with respect to the conservation of oil and gas must not conflict with or be inconsistent with the laws of the province”
The non-conflict rule is expressly made dependent on later regulations.
Clear-cut
“a fine not exceeding $300,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both”
Numerical caps on penalties are fixed and leave no room for interpretation.“The managed area of a first nation consists of the lands set apart, as of the transfer date, as the reserve or reserves of the first nation”
The geographic scope is tied to a single calendar date and existing reserves.
Discretion. The Governor in Council may exempt entire classes of projects from environmental assessment and may make regulations that shape the non-conflict rule and many other operational details.
Challenging the law itself. The Act mainly delegates power to First Nations and contains no direct limits on Charter rights, so a facial vagueness or overbreadth challenge would face a high threshold.
Disputing a charge under it. Offence elements and penalties are spelled out numerically, yet the content of the underlying oil and gas laws themselves is created later by each First Nation, leaving room to argue whether a given act falls inside the adopted rules.
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?
not effective
The sole official evaluation, a 2010 summative departmental review by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, concluded that FNOGMMA failed to meet its intermediate and final outcomes, with no First Nations becoming operational, pilot projects cancelled, and the program remaining unimplemented after significant resources. No subsequent statutory reviews, Auditor General or PBO reports, court rulings, or peer-reviewed studies assessing its effectiveness were identified in official sources.
- Summative Evaluation of the First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act ImplementationevaluationFNOGMMA has proven unsuccessful in meeting its intermediate and final outcomes, with no First Nation becoming operational under the legislation and the program remaining a conceptual framework.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.