Bill C-25 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act
An Act respecting the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band Order
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedFeb. 25, 2014
- Debated in principleMarch 7, 2014
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMay 1, 2014
- Passed the second chamberJune 17, 2014
- Became lawJune 18, 2014
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
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 25 February 2014, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development introduced Bill C-25, An Act respecting the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation Band Order (Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. On 4 July 2013, the government of Canada and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians announced a Supplemental Agreement that clarifies the process for enrolment in the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation and resolves issues that emerged from the implementation of the 2008 Agreement for the Recognition of the Qalipu Mi’kmaq Band. Bill C-25 grants to the Governor in Council the power to amend the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation Band Order.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
67% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (649 words introduced, 623 passed).
substantial changeintent kept
The bill's core grant of power to the Governor in Council and its preamble explaining the 2008 Agreement and 2013 Supplemental Agreement remained unchanged. Only formal elements such as reading dates, assent information, and chapter numbering were updated for the final statute.
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Hard
The Act narrowly empowers the Governor in Council to amend one existing order by adding or removing specific names and birth dates. It uses defined terms from the Indian Act and contains an objective liability shield tied directly to those amendments.
Open to argument
“The Governor in Council may, by order, amend the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band Order, in particular to add the name of a person to, or remove the name of a person from, the schedule to that Order”
The phrase 'in particular' leaves open the possibility of other unspecified amendments beyond names and dates.
Clear-cut
“In this Act, "band" has the same meaning as in subsection 2(1) of the Indian Act, and "council of a band" has the same meaning as "council of the band" in that subsection.”
It imports existing statutory definitions rather than creating new undefined terms.“along with the person's date of birth”
Limits the amendment power to two objective data fields.
Discretion. The Governor in Council alone decides which names and dates to add or remove, guided only by the preamble's reference to the agreements.
Challenging the law itself. The text creates no prohibition or penalty that could engage Charter vagueness or overbreadth doctrines; it is a narrow enabling provision.
Disputing a charge under it. The Act imposes no duties on individuals, so there is no violation to 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?
no evaluation found
No statutory, parliamentary, Auditor General, PBO, or departmental evaluations of the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation Act's effectiveness were identified. Court rulings and one academic study address related enrolment disputes and criticisms but do not assess the Act's achievement of its objectives.
- Wells v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FC 483courtFederal Court ruled certain amendments to the Supplemental Agreement unenforceable and unreasonable, requiring reassessment of thousands of applications.
- Benoit v. Federation of Newfoundland Indians Inc. (NLSC 2023)courtNL Supreme Court found plaintiffs faced membership oppression under the 2013 agreement but did not overturn it or order broad reassessment.
- Brake/Collins class action (Federal Court, ongoing as of 2026)courtClass proceeding challenges the Supplemental Agreement's legality and seeks remedies for rejected applicants; summary trial scheduled for 2027.
- Locke, T. (2017) Displacement by Design (Academia.edu)studyAcademic paper criticizes the Act for centralizing membership criteria and displacing traditional community governance.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.