Bill C-5 · 40th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Indian Oil and Gas Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedJan. 28, 2009
- Debated in principleFeb. 13, 2009
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberApril 2, 2009
- Passed the second chamberMay 5, 2009
- Became lawMay 14, 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
- Hector Daniel LangSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- John Duncanexpresses gratification at advancing the bill and calls it an important step forward for first nations prosperity.
- Todd Russellstates that the Liberal Party has supported the bill and worked to improve it.
- Bruce Stantonthanks the member for support and affirms the bill builds a foundation for first nations needs.
- Gerry St. GermainSenate · SenatorAfter ten years of negotiation the bill should not be reopened as perfection should not be the enemy of the good.
- Robert W. PetersonSenate · SenatorThe bill provides a modern effective tool after exhaustive consultation and 130 First Nations support it.
- Linda Duncanstates her party is supporting the bill and commends the government for the modernized system.
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 3 December 2008, Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Indian Oil and Gas Act, was introduced and read a first time in the House of Commons. Indian Oil and Gas Canada is the special operating agency within Indian and Northern Affairs Canada mandated to fulfill the Crown’s fiduciary and statutory obligations related to the management of oil and gas resources in First Nations. The bill replaces almost all of the existing provisions of the existing six-section Indian Oil and Gas Act and includes a number of matters that are currently provided for in the Indian Oil and Gas Regulations, 1995. Bill C-5 expands the Governor-in-Council’s existing regulation-making powers and adds new ones, particularly with respect to licences, permits and leases for the exploration and exploitation of oil and gas on reserve lands. The bill also makes changes in respect of the limitation period for actions to collect amounts owing and the determination of royalty payments. It puts in place sanctions for contraventions of the Act as well as provisions for its enforcement comprised of fines and penalties, a remedy for trespass, environmental protection, and authority to issue replacement leases for lands added to…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
What the Senate tried to change
- adds safeguardsNick G. SibbestonAssure First Nations that the minister would carry out fiduciary responsibility when delegating authority to provincial governments.Voted down · May 6, 2009 · Senate record
- adds provisionsNick G. SibbestonGive First Nations shared power with the minister to take actions against businesses that breached contracts or failed to pay royalties.Voted down · May 6, 2009 · Senate record
How it changed on the way
70% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (7,264 words introduced, 6,641 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The core structure and definitions remained intact, but the regulation-making powers were expanded with added detail on drainage measures and a new clause on exploitation plans. These additions broadened ministerial authority slightly beyond the introduced version.
- Clause (l) on drainage risk measures was completed and extended to wells outside first nation lands.
Before: “(l) prescribing measures that contract holders may be required to take when the Minister determines that there is a risk of drainage of oil or gas by a well outside a contract”
After: “area, whether the well is in or outside first nation lands;”
- New clause (m) was added authorizing orders for exploitation plans.
After: “(m) authorizing the Minister in specified circumstances to order the submission of plans for the exploitation of oil or gas situated in first nation lands, respecting the content of such plans and t”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill mixes clear numerical limits and defined terms with repeated subjective standards such as ministerial opinion and reasonable grounds. This structure leaves wide scope for argument over coverage and compliance.
Open to argument
“if, in the Minister's opinion, the exploration or exploi”
Subjective ministerial judgment replaces an objective test for ordering suspensions or remedial action.“impose any conditions that the Minister considers appropriate”
Open-ended discretion allows the Minister to add requirements not fixed in the statute.“reasonable grounds to believe”
Repeated use of this standard in inspection and audit powers invites disputes over what facts meet the threshold.“with any adaptations that the Governor in Council considers appropriate”
Provincial laws may be altered by regulation on a case-by-case basis without statutory limits.
Clear-cut
“liable to a fine not exceeding $100,000”
Fixed maximum penalty supplies a clear monetary ceiling.“a fine not exceeding the greater of $100,000 and any amount that was not paid”
Precise formula ties the penalty directly to unpaid royalties.
Discretion. Broad powers are left to the Minister to suspend activities, impose conditions, and order production of documents, and to the Governor in Council to make regulations and incorporate provincial laws with adaptations.
Challenging the law itself. Defined terms, numerical caps, and time limits supply enough structure to resist a successful vagueness or overbreadth challenge under section 7 of the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. A person facing an order or notice can dispute whether the Minister’s opinion or an inspector’s reasonable grounds actually existed on the facts.
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.