Bill C-30 · 39th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Specific Claims Tribunal Act
An Act to establish the Specific Claims Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedNov. 27, 2007
- Debated in principleDec. 10, 2007
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMay 13, 2008
- Passed the second chamberJune 11, 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
- Gerry St. GermainSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Chuck StrahlPresents bill as decisive positive action and cornerstone of new approach.
- Larry BagnellSpeaks positively about the bill enabling modern treaties and expresses happiness to address it at third reading.
- Rod BruinoogeDefends government action on claims and criticizes prior inaction.
- Anita NevilleStates official opposition will support the bill as a compromise.
- Jean CrowderExplicitly states support for the bill as amended and calls it a major step forward.
- Marc LemayCongratulates the minister and states the bill has full approval of first nations after consultation.
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
52% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (7,241 words introduced, 7,007 passed). A committee amended it.
moderate changeintent broadened
The bill kept its core structure and most wording but added a new subsection on Crown obligations and expanded one ground for claims. These edits slightly widened the Tribunal's potential reach without altering its purpose or procedures.
- Added a new subsection extending the meaning of Crown obligations for illegal leases or dispositions.
After: “Extended meaning of "Crown" — obligations (3) For the purpose of applying paragraph (1)(d) in respect of an illegal lease or disposition of reserve land located in an area within Cana”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard
The Act supplies exact dollar caps, defined terms, and explicit bars on punitive damages, yet repeatedly hands the Tribunal open-ended discretion over hearings, parties, confidentiality, and costs. This mix of bright-line rules and subjective standards produces a middle-ground drafting style.
Open to argument
“if the Tribunal considers it a necessary or proper party”
Vague test for adding provinces or First Nations invites argument over what counts as necessary or proper.“if it is satisfied that the reasons for confidentiality outweigh the societal interest that the hearing be public”
Balancing test uses undefined societal interest and Tribunal satisfaction, creating room for prolonged disputes.
Clear-cut
“shall not, despite any other provision in this subsection, award total compensation in excess of $150 million”
Hard numerical ceiling removes discretion on maximum payout.“shall not award any amount for (i) punitive or exemplary damages, or (ii) any harm or loss that is not pecuniary in nature”
Explicit categorical exclusions leave no interpretive gap on forbidden heads of damage.
Discretion. The Tribunal decides appropriateness of rules, necessity of parties, confidentiality balances, and hearing logistics, while the Minister chooses the scope of the five-year review and any modifications to costs rules.
Challenging the law itself. Broad phrases such as 'necessary or proper' and interest-balancing tests could be attacked under Charter s. 7 or the vagueness doctrine, though the presence of defined terms and monetary caps weakens the claim.
Disputing a charge under it. The statute mainly creates a tribunal and procedural rules rather than imposing direct obligations on private persons, so few individuals will face enforcement actions they can contest.
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?
partly effective
The Specific Claims Tribunal Act established an independent tribunal that has operated since 2011, hearing claims, issuing decisions, and providing an alternative to stalled negotiations as intended. Official reviews and audits, however, highlight persistent issues with the overall specific claims process, including delays, limited settlements under the reformed framework, and shortcomings in fairness, transparency, and reconciliation outcomes.
- Office of the Auditor General of Canada Report 6—First Nations Specific Claims (2016)auditThe audit found that the department did not adequately manage specific claims resolution under the Justice at Last reforms tied to the Act, with inconsistent results, barriers to access, and few new settlements attributable to the Tribunal process.
- Evaluation of the Specific Claims Assessment and Settlement Process FY2013-14 to FY2019-20 (CIRNAC, 2022)evaluationThe evaluation noted progress in collaboration post-2016 review and OAG audit but found the process requires review for impartiality, fairness, and transparency to better advance reconciliation.
- Specific Claims Tribunal Annual Report 2024–2025reviewThe Tribunal continues to receive claims, hold hearings, and issue decisions (98 total since 2011), supporting its mandate while noting ongoing caseload and reform discussions.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.