Bill C-428 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Indian Act Amendment and Replacement Act
An Act to amend the Indian Act (publication of by-laws) and to provide for its replacement
Private member’s bill. Became law.
- IntroducedDone
- Debated in principleDone
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberNov. 20, 2013
- Passed the second chamberDec. 14, 2014
- Became lawDec. 15, 2014
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
The texts have not been compared yet.
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill mixes exact lists of repealed sections and fixed publication timelines with several subjective choices left to band councils and the Minister. This creates pockets of clarity alongside recurring room for argument over what satisfies the rules.
Open to argument
“ever the council considers appropriate in the circumstances”
Subjective standard lets the council decide publication method without an objective test.“believes on reasonable grounds”
Relies on an official's personal belief rather than a purely factual trigger.“under efficient instruction at home or elsewhere”
Undefined term 'efficient' invites disputes over what counts as adequate schooling.
Clear-cut
“A by-law made by the council of a band under this Act comes into force on the day on which it is first published under subsection (1) or on any later day specified in the by-law”
Fixes a clear start date tied to a verifiable act of publication.“If a fine is imposed under a by-law made by the council of a band under this Act, it belongs to the band”
Direct assignment of ownership with no further conditions.“Within the first 10 sitting days of the House of Commons in every calendar year”
Uses a precise, recurring time window for the Minister's report.
Discretion. Band councils choose the publication venue they deem appropriate, the Minister decides whether to order certain sections inapplicable to off-reserve Indians, and both the content of the annual report and the meaning of 'efficient instruction' remain open to official interpretation.
Challenging the law itself. Vague phrases such as 'considers appropriate' and 'efficient instruction' could support a vagueness or overbreadth argument under section 7 of the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. A person facing seizure or a fine could dispute whether 'reasonable grounds' or 'efficient instruction' were truly met, requiring factual findings rather than simple application of numbers or lists.
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?
The evidence has not been searched yet.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.