Bill C-9 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
First Nations Elections Act
An Act respecting the election and term of office of chiefs and councillors of certain First Nations and the composition of council of those First Nations
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedOct. 29, 2013
- Debated in principleOct. 29, 2013
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberDec. 10, 2013
- Passed the second chamberApril 7, 2014
- Became lawApril 10, 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
On 29 October 2013, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development introduced Bill C-9, An Act respecting the election and term of office of chiefs and councillors of certain First Nations and the composition of council of those First Nations (First Nations Elections Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. In October 2010, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and the leaders of these organizations launched a national engagement exercise on electoral reform. These organizations met with other First Nation leaders across the country between October 2010 and March 2011 to present their recommendations and seek advice on improving the election process for First Nations. Bill C-9 establishes a regime, alternative to the one under the Indian Act, to govern the election of chiefs and councillors of certain First Nations. Among other things it • provides that chiefs and councillors hold office for four years; • provides that the election of a chief or councillor may be contested before a competent court; and • sets out offences and penalties in relation to the election of a chief or councillor. This enactment also allows First Natio…
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
47% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (4,194 words introduced, 4,061 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The core alternative election regime for certain First Nations was retained with four-year terms and opt-out codes, but Parliament added detailed contestation procedures, a new petition removal process, and offences provisions. Nearly half the text was altered through expansions to enforcement and court roles.
- Added petition for removal from office section with new prohibition.
After: “or (b) accept money, goods, employment or other valuable consideration in exchange for their signature on such a petition.”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The Act uses many exact numerical thresholds, defined terms, and clear prohibitions that leave little room for argument. A few subjective phrases and wide regulation-making powers still create pockets of uncertainty.
Open to argument
“if the officer believes on reasonable grounds that the person has done so”
Introduces an officer's subjective belief rather than an objective fact.“a contravention of a provision of this Act or the regulations is likely to have affected the result”
Uses a probabilistic standard open to prolonged factual dispute.“the Minister is satisfied that a protracted leadership dispute has significantly compro”
Depends on the Minister's personal satisfaction and undefined terms like 'significantly compromised'.
Clear-cut
“is 18 years of age or older on the day of the election”
Fixes a bright-line age and exact calendar day.“a fine of not more than $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years, or to both”
States maximum penalties in concrete dollar and time amounts.
Discretion. The Minister may add First Nations to the schedule by order, set first-election dates, and make regulations that determine petition percentages, removal procedures, and many electoral details.
Challenging the law itself. Section 3(1)(b) and the 'reasonable grounds' and 'likely to have affected' tests could be attacked under Charter s. 7 or s. 2(b) for vagueness or overbreadth.
Disputing a charge under it. Most offences are framed as clear 'must not' commands with objective elements, but the 'reasonable grounds' and 'likely affected' standards allow factual disputes over whether the prohibition was breached.
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.