Bill C-28 · 40th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedApril 27, 2009
- Debated in principleMay 7, 2009
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMay 26, 2009
- Passed the second chamberJune 9, 2009
- Became lawJune 11, 2009
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
- Charlie WattSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Charlie Angusexplicitly states support for the bill as a needed framework for Cree rights.
- Larry Bagnellnotes cooperation on the bill and uses time to discuss related land claims positively.
- Jean Crowderexplicitly rises in support and notes proper consultation from the outset.
- Patrick BrazeauSenate · SenatorThe bill empowers Cree communities with greater control and advances self-government.
- Paul Szabostates the bill is not controversial and deserves House support at third reading.
- Marc LemayHe describes the bill as extremely important for the Cree and Naskapi communities and discusses its positive outcomes after negotiations.
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.
What it set out to do
On 27 April 2009, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development introduced Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA) was a treaty dealing with land issues dating back to the late 1800s. In addition to dealing with land claims and resources issues, the JBNQA also established regimes for future relationships between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in the region and among local, regional, provincial and federal governments. After it was brought into force, the parties had difficulties in interpreting, sharing, and acting on JBNQA obligations, leading to litigation beginning in the early 1980s. Bill C-28, among other things: • amends the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act (CNQA) to empower the Cree Regional Authority (CRA) with bylaw-making powers • includes a financial package, including $1.1 billion to be paid once the Agreement comes into force upon signature • brings to an end significant Cree litigation related to alleged deficiencies in past federal JBNQA implementation efforts • establish dispute resolution mechanisms to address disputes before an…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
How it changed on the way
70% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (8,477 words introduced, 6,089 passed).
minor changeintent kept
The bill passed with only a single typographical correction and otherwise identical text. Core provisions on Cree Regional Authority powers and Oujé-Bougoumou Band incorporation remained unchanged.
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill uses exact dates, dollar caps, and defined bands for many rules, but relies on effect-based comparisons and reasonableness tests for by-laws and inspections. This leaves room for argument over what standards are equivalent or more stringent.
Open to argument
“at any reasonable time”
Subjective test invites disputes over timing of inspections.“more stringent in their effect”
Comparative standard without objective metric creates prolonged argument.“at least equivalent in their effect”
Vague equivalence test for by-law standards against other laws.
Clear-cut
“fine not exceeding $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months”
Numerical limits fix maximum penalties without discretion.“November 11, 1975”
Specific calendar date anchors prior rights and titles.“The Statutory Instruments Act does not apply”
Clear exclusion removes one layer of procedural rules.
Discretion. Limited ministerial power remains for authorizing inspections of Cree band records; most new powers rest with the Cree Regional Authority council via by-law.
Challenging the law itself. Vagueness and overbreadth claims could target the broad by-law authority and effect-based conflict rules under section 7 or 15 Charter interests.
Disputing a charge under it. Accused persons could dispute whether a band by-law standard is more stringent or whether conduct occurred at a reasonable time.
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.