Bill C-2 · 37th Parliament · Jean Chrétien
Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act
An Act to establish a process for assessing the environmental and socio-economic effects of certain activities in Yukon
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedOct. 3, 2002
- Debated in principleOct. 22, 2002
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMarch 18, 2003
- Passed the second chamberMay 5, 2003
- Became lawMay 13, 2003
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Jean ChrétienPrime 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.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
58% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (24,239 words introduced, 23,710 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill added one new exclusion in the definition of financial assistance for preliminary work such as feasibility studies. It also inserted the royal assent date into the text.
- Added exclusion for preliminary assistance in financial assistance definition.
After: “(b) assistance for anything done prelimi- nary to a project, such as a feasibility study, that does not have effects on the environment;”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The Act supplies many defined terms and cross-references that fix the meaning of key words, yet operative clauses repeatedly use open-ended phrases such as 'considers necessary' and 'likely to be undertaken'. This combination produces a middle ground between black-letter rules and discretionary judgment.
Open to argument
“that are likely to enable all persons participating in the meeting to hear each other”
Uses a predictive and subjective standard rather than an objective technical test.“any supplementary information that it considers necessary for its assessment”
Leaves the scope of required information to the assessing body's own view.“any other activity that it considers likely to be undertaken in relation to an activity so identified and sufficiently related to it”
Employs two subjective thresholds ('likely' and 'sufficiently related') without numerical or categorical limits.“incorporate any mitigative measures that may be appropriate”
Delegates choice of measures to an undefined appropriateness standard.
Clear-cut
“or loan guarantee, but does not include (a) a refund, remission, reduction or deferral, or any other form of relief from the payment, of a tax, duty or fee, other than relief provided by law to permit the undertaking of an activity specifically named in the law”
Provides an exhaustive list of inclusions and a detailed exclusion with a narrow exception.
Discretion. Wide discretion remains with designated offices, the executive committee, panels and decision bodies to decide scope, required information, mitigative measures and whether effects are 'likely' or 'significant'.
Challenging the law itself. The repeated use of 'likely', 'considers necessary' and 'appropriate' could support a vagueness or overbreadth argument under s. 7 of the Charter, though the detailed definitions may narrow the claim.
Disputing a charge under it. A proponent could argue that an activity fell outside the 'sufficiently related' or 'likely' tests used to define the project scope, but the many precise definitions would limit the range of such disputes.
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?
partly effective
The Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act established a single assessment process that has been operational since late 2005 and underwent a required five-year statutory review completed in 2012, which found substantial progress in implementation alongside needs for refinement in areas like socio-economic/cultural assessments, follow-up/monitoring, and cumulative effects. Subsequent independent studies and reports highlight ongoing shortcomings in environmental protection, project approvals despite identified risks, and alignment with Umbrella Final Agreement objectives.
- Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act Five-year Review (Final Observations and Conclusions Report, October 2009)reviewThe review found that much had been accomplished in developing implementation mechanisms since assessments began in November 2005, but ongoing efforts were needed to refine mechanics for consistency with the regime's intent, including better coverage of heritage/cultural/socio-economic issues, follow-up, and land-use planning.
- Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act Five-year Review (CIRNAC)reviewThis joint review by Canada, Council of Yukon First Nations, and Government of Yukon examined YESAA, regulations, processes, funding, public participation, timelines, and performance, resulting in recommendations for improvement completed in March 2012.
- An Assessment of YESAB: Implementing the Spirit and Intent of the Umbrella Final Agreement's Chapter 12 (Trent University dissertation)studyYESAB has made procedural strides in transparency and research depth but faces structural challenges limiting full implementation of UFA goals, including inadequate Traditional Knowledge incorporation, limited follow-up capacity, and external interference.
- Uncertain Benefits, Known Costs: An Audit of Yukon Major Mines (Centre for Climate Justice, 2026)studyAnalysis of mines assessed via YESAB since 2005 found economic and employment outcomes consistently fell short of projections used in assessments, though regulation was rarely the cause of delays.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.