Bill C-62 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Yale First Nation Final Agreement Act
An Act to give effect to the Yale First Nation Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedMay 31, 2013
- Debated in principleJune 5, 2013
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 6, 2013
- Passed the second chamberJune 17, 2013
- Became lawJune 18, 2013
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
- Scott TannasSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Lillian Eva DyckSenate · SenatorConcluded after review that the bill is worth supporting despite unresolved overlapping claims.
- Bernard Valcourtmoves the bill and expresses great pleasure in presenting the final agreement.
- Jean Crowderdescribes the bill as the final ratification step after a long positive process.
- The Acting Speakerannounces procedural progress of the bill through second reading to committee.
- Maria Mouraniexpresses pleasure in addressing the bill and highlights positive precedent of similar agreements.
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
The Library of Parliament does not prepare Legislative Summaries for bills that implement treaties, conventions, agreements or administrative arrangements bills. The following is a short summary: On 6 June 2013, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development introduced Bill C-62, An Act to give effect to the Yale First Nation Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (Yale First Nation Final Agreement Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Yale First Nation’s traditional territory and 217 hectares of reserve land is located within the Fraser Valley Regional District north of Hope. Bill C-62 gives effect to the Yale First Nation Final Agreement. It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
How it changed on the way
44% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (2,211 words introduced, 2,048 passed).
moderate changeintent mostly kept
The bill received royal assent with only formal updates for chapter number, assent date, and statute formatting. Core provisions on the Yale First Nation Final Agreement, lands, fisheries, and consequential amendments stayed intact.
- Explanatory notes on Access to Information Act and other acts removed from final statute text.
Before: “EXPLANATORY NOTES Access to Information Act Clause 20: Relevant portion of subsection 13(3):”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The Act uses defined terms and fixed timelines to incorporate a specific agreement and set out notice rules. It still leaves key content and some powers to the external Agreement and broad regulation-making authority.
Open to argument
“The Governor in Council may make any orders and regulations that are necessary for the purpose of carrying out any of the provisions of the Agreement or of the Tax Treatment Agree”
Subjective standard of what is 'necessary' grants wide discretion without objective limits.
Clear-cut
“be served at least 14 days before the day of argument, unless the court or tribunal authorizes a shorter period.”
Fixed 14-day period and listed particulars create a clear, testable procedural rule.“Chapters 25 and 26 of the Agreement are deemed to have effect as of February 5, 2010.”
Specific date removes ambiguity about retroactive application.
Discretion. The Governor in Council holds open-ended power to issue orders and regulations needed to implement the Agreement, and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans may enter into and implement the Harvest Agreement.
Challenging the law itself. The Act affirms a section 35 treaty and land-claims agreement, so vagueness or overbreadth claims under the Charter would face a high bar.
Disputing a charge under it. Many obligations are defined by reference to the external Agreement, so disputes over whether conduct breaches the Act often require interpreting that Agreement.
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.