Bill C-21 · 39th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedNov. 13, 2007
- Debated in principleNov. 13, 2007
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMay 28, 2008
- Passed the second chamberJune 16, 2008
- Became lawJune 18, 2008
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
- Consiglio Di NinoSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Harold Albrechtspeaks in favor of the government's motion to amend and repeal section 67
- Mobina S. B. JafferSenate · SenatorThe bill closes the human rights gap so First Nations people enjoy the same protections as other Canadians.
- A. Raynell AndreychukSenate · SenatorThe committee studied the issue thoroughly and the bill provides a timetable and plan for implementation.
- Ed Fastthanks colleague and expresses gladness at extending human rights via the bill
- Lawrence Cannonmoves amendments to finalize the bill
- Anita Nevillestates she is very pleased to speak in support of the amended bill
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
82% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (501 words introduced, 673 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The core repeal of section 67 and the five-year review requirement were retained, but the review shifted from a parliamentary committee to a joint government-First Nations process. The grace period was lengthened from six to 36 months, two interpretative clauses were inserted, and a new study on compliance capacity was added.
- Transitional grace period extended from six months to 36 months.
Before: “if it occurs within six months after the day on which this Act receives royal assent.”
After: “if it occurs within 36 months after the day on which this Act receives royal assent.”
- New requirement added for a study on First Nations capacity to comply with the Act.
After: “senting the First Nations peoples of Canada, shall, within the period referred to in section 3, undertake a study to identify the extent of the preparation, capacity and fiscal and human resources that will be required in order for First Nations communities and organizations to comply with the Canadian Human Rights Act.”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill uses fixed calendar periods and a direct repeal to create clear start and end points. It then layers in open-ended phrases about balancing rights and ministerial choices that require later judgment calls.
Open to argument
“identify the extent of the preparation, capacity and fiscal and human resources that will be required”
The study mandate uses broad, subjective terms without measurable benchmarks.
Clear-cut
“Section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is repealed.”
A single, unambiguous command with no qualifiers.“shall not constitute the basis for a complaint under Part III of the Canadian Human Rights Act if it occurs within 36 months after the day on which this Act receives royal assent.”
Exact 36-month window measured from royal assent supplies a bright-line temporal limit.“Within five years after the day on which this Act receives royal assent”
Fixed five-year deadline for review removes discretion over timing.
Discretion. The Minister alone selects the organizations that count as representative and the government decides the scope and depth of the required study and report.
Challenging the law itself. The interpretive clause directing regard for collective rights could be attacked for vagueness under s. 7 or s. 15 of the Charter or for inconsistency with s. 35 aboriginal rights.
Disputing a charge under it. Once the 36-month window closes, the only remaining disputes concern the open-ended balancing language rather than factual compliance with numeric deadlines.
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?
effective
Bill C-21 repealed section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, extending human rights protections and complaint mechanisms to First Nations people regarding Indian Act matters, as evidenced by over 500 complaints filed with the CHRC since 2008. The mandated five-year review and CHRC special report confirm increased access to remedies while noting implementation challenges such as capacity and abandonment rates.
- Special Report to Parliament on the Impacts of Bill C-21, Canadian Human Rights Commission (2014)evaluationSince the repeal, the CHRC received over 500 complaints from Aboriginal people against federal or First Nations governments, with dozens referred to the Tribunal or resolved, demonstrating expanded access to human rights protections.
- Report to Parliament on the Five-Year Review of the Repeal of Section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (2014)reviewThe joint government-First Nations review examined effects of the repeal, fulfilling the statutory requirement and documenting impacts on complaint processes and community capacity.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.