Bill C-34 · 39th Parliament · Stephen Harper
First Nations Jurisdiction over Education in British Columbia Act
An Act to provide for jurisdiction over education on First Nation lands in British Columbia
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedNov. 22, 2006
- Debated in principleDec. 5, 2006
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberDec. 5, 2006
- Passed the second chamberDec. 11, 2006
- Became lawDec. 12, 2006
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
- Hugh SegalSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Jean CrowderShe states full support for the bill and notes all parties are fast-tracking it.
- Joan FraserSenate · SenatorDescribes the bill as a major step toward First Nations control of education and states strong support.
- Anita NevilleShe states she will recommend support for the legislation and notes the cooperative process.
- Jim PrenticeHe expresses enthusiastic support for the bill and notes cross-party cooperation.
- Marc LemayHe notes all parties including the Bloc recognize the bill's value and are moving it quickly.
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
How it changed on the way
45% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (3,664 words introduced, 3,397 passed).
minor changeintent mostly kept
The bill passed with only minor updates to titles, dates, and chapter references plus completion of the final notice provision. Core definitions, powers, and liability rules remained unchanged from introduction to royal assent.
- Updated bill title and added assent date and chapter number.
Before: “BILL C-34 An Act to provide for jurisdiction over education on First Nation lands in British Columbia FIRST READING, NOVEMBER 22, 2006”
After: “STATUTES OF CANADA 2006 CHAPTER 10 An Act to provide for jurisdiction over education on First Nation lands in British Columbia ASSENTED TO 12th DECEMBER, 2006”
- Completed the cut-off notice section in the final version.
Before: “(1) A party in any proceeding before a court or tribunal shall serve notice in wr”
After: “(1) A party in any proceeding before a court or tribunal shall serve notice in writing on the Attorney General of Canada and the participating First Nation of any issue raised by that party in respect of Notice of court or tribunal proceedings (a) the interpretation or validity of an individual agreement; or (b) the validity or app”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The Act relies on defined terms and fixed numbers for the Authority's structure and liability rules, making core obligations clear. Much of the substance is deferred to individual agreements and co-management agreements whose content is not set out here.
Open to argument
“hire any persons that are necessary to conduct its work”
Uses a subjective necessity test without objective criteria.“for cause or for a ground set out in the board's rules”
Leaves removal grounds partly to internal rules that can be changed.
Clear-cut
“A participating First Nation is not liable in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by Her Majesty”
States a clear, unqualified liability shield.“for an initial term of two years”
Sets a definite initial term length.
Discretion. The Governor in Council decides when to bring agreements into force by order, the Minister decides when to remove a First Nation from the schedule once satisfied a treaty exists, and the Authority's detailed duties are shaped by co-management agreements.
Challenging the law itself. The Act is largely enabling and incorporates agreements, so a facial Charter challenge on vagueness or overbreadth would face a high threshold.
Disputing a charge under it. Because many obligations are defined only by reference to the terms of individual or co-management agreements, a party could argue about the scope of those external documents.
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.