Bill C-5 · 37th Parliament · Jean Chrétien
Species at Risk Act
An Act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedOct. 9, 2002
- Debated in principleOct. 9, 2002
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberOct. 9, 2002
- Passed the second chamberDec. 11, 2002
- Became lawDec. 12, 2002
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
The texts have not been compared yet.
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The Act supplies many defined terms and some direct prohibitions, yet most operative duties and powers hinge on phrases such as ministerial opinion or what the minister considers appropriate. This structure shifts concrete outcomes to discretionary choices rather than fixed statutory tests.
Open to argument
“if he or she considers it appropriate to do so”
Repeatedly conditions agreements and consultations on a minister's subjective judgment rather than an objective trigger.“that, in his or her opinion, are necessary”
Ties the duty to make regulations to the competent minister's personal assessment instead of statutory criteria.“to the extent possible, based on the best available information”
Leaves the scope of critical-habitat identification open to debate over what is possible or best.“if he or she is of the opinion”
Makes the obligation to recommend orders depend on the minister's view rather than verifiable facts.
Clear-cut
“No person shall kill, harm, harass, capture or take an individual of a wildlife species that is listed as an extirpated species, an endangered species or a threatened species.”
States a clear, conduct-based prohibition without qualifiers.“Within 30 days after the expiry of the period referred to in subsection (1)”
Fixes a definite time limit for finalizing recovery strategies or action plans.
Discretion. Ministers, COSEWIC and the competent minister receive repeated authority to decide what is appropriate, necessary in their opinion, or feasible, and to adopt multi-species approaches or issue regulations at their discretion.
Challenging the law itself. Broad grants of power keyed to ministerial opinion could be attacked for vagueness or overbreadth under section 7 of the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. While the core killing prohibition is straightforward, many obligations turn on contested questions of what a minister considered appropriate or possible, easing disputes over breach.
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
Official audits and evaluations show that while the Species at Risk Act has established processes for listing, recovery planning, and some habitat protection, implementation failures including persistent backlogs, limited monitoring, and minimal species recovery progress have prevented it from fully achieving its protection and recovery objectives. Departmental and Auditor General reports indicate only partial contributions to outcomes, with most listed species showing no status improvement after a decade.
- Report 2—Follow-up on the Recovery of Species at Risk (CESD 2023)audit44% of 144 species with determinable trends showed no progress toward population and distribution objectives; 61 recovery strategies or plans and 146 action plans were overdue.
- Horizontal evaluation of the Species at Risk Program (ECCC 2025)evaluationThe program contributes at least somewhat to expected results, but 65% of species remain at the same listing status 10 years after listing, with only 6% no longer at risk.
- Report 2—Critical Habitat for Species at Risk (CESD 2025)auditOnly 32% of species had critical habitat fully identified; monitoring of conservation actions was limited, with just 57% of planned actions clearly documented.
- Report 9—Supporting Species at Risk Assessment and Reassessment (CESD 2024)auditECCC support for assessments falls short of needs, creating growing backlogs that prevent timely 10-year reassessments required by the Act.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.