Bill C-34 · 39th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act
An Act to give effect to the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedDec. 6, 2007
- Debated in principleMay 26, 2008
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 17, 2008
- Passed the second chamberJune 25, 2008
- Became lawJune 26, 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
- Gerald J. Comeau (Deputy Leader of the Government)Senate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Rod Bruinoogedescribes the bill as one to be celebrated and a positive step beyond the Indian Act.
- Jean Crowderexplicitly states New Democrats will support the legislation and highlights its benefits like economic certainty and autonomy.
- Larry Bagnellexpresses excitement and calls the agreement historic and a model for the world.
- Keith Martincalls it a landmark bill and urges completion of treaties to resolve land claims.
- Mario Laframboisestates the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the bill and supports the principle of self-government it enacts.
- Nancy Karetak-Lindelldefends the bill as an opportunity to move forward and get out from under the Indian Act.
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
That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. · 2008-05-26 · Passed
How it changed on the way
45% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (3,399 words introduced, 3,188 passed).
moderate changeintent mostly kept
The core provisions giving effect to the Tsawwassen agreement remained intact, but Parliament added coordination clauses with two other bills and completed truncated text on fisheries enforcement. These updates affected only the consequential amendments and transitional application sections.
- Added a new coordination clause linking section 2 of this Act with section 74 of another Act.
After: “(3) On the first day on which both section 74 of the other Act and section 2 of this Act are in force, that section 74 is replaced by the following:”
- Completed and expanded the replacement text for fishery officer powers.
Before: “(3) On the first day on which both se”
After: “The powers and protections that a fishery officer or fishery guardian has under this or any other Act of Parliament, including the powers and protections o”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The Act relies on defined terms and cross-references to specific chapters and clauses of the Agreement for most rules. A few provisions use broad language that leaves room for argument.
Open to argument
“any orders and regulations that are necessary for the purpose of carrying out any of the provisions”
Uses a subjective purpose test and open-ended power rather than listing exact matters to be regulated.
Clear-cut
“be served at least 14 days before the day of argument”
States an exact number of days and required content of notice.“continue in effect on the Former Tsawwassen Reserve for 30 days beginning on that date”
Fixes a clear time limit with an objective start date.
Discretion. The Governor in Council holds wide power to issue any orders or regulations needed to implement the Agreement, and ministers gain authority to enter harvest agreements under the Fisheries Act.
Challenging the law itself. The Act implements a treaty under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, so vagueness or overbreadth claims under the Charter would face a high bar.
Disputing a charge under it. Most obligations are set by the incorporated Agreement, so disputes would turn on interpreting its specific clauses rather than the Act itself.
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.