An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

How it changed on the way

87% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (14,068 words introduced, 12,334 passed). A committee amended it.

transformative changeintent mostly kept

The bill was heavily rewritten, with 87 percent of the introduced text replaced or removed and many new clauses added before royal assent. Core goals of updating environmental assessments remained, but definitions, Crown corporation rules, and federal purposes were substantially revised.

• Section 8 on assessments by Crown corporations was replaced with new rules tied to specific powers.

  Before: “(1) A Crown corporation, within the meaning of the Financial Administration Act, or any corporation controlled by the Crown corporation, shall, if regulations have been made in relation to it under paragraph 59(j) and have come into force, ensure that an assessment of the environmental effects of a project under this section is conducted in accordance with those regulations as early as is practicable in the planning stages of the project and before irrevocable decisions are made.”

  After: “tion Act, that is not a federal authority shall, if regulations have been made in relation to it under paragraph 59(j) and have come into force, ensure that, before it exercises a power or performs a duty or function referred to in any of paragraphs 5(1)(a) to (d) in relation to a project, an environmental assessment of the project under this section is conducted in accordance with those regulations as early as is practicable in the planning stages of the project and before irrevocable decisions are made.”

How precisely it is written

vagueChallenging the law: EasyDisputing a charge: Easy

The bill relies heavily on subjective judgments by officials and ministers rather than fixed rules. Many key decisions turn on opinions about harm, appropriateness, or likelihood instead of clear thresholds.

Open to argument

• “it appears to a court of competent jurisdiction that an order made under section 11.1 has been, is about to be or is likely to be contravened”

  Uses predictive and subjective standard 'likely to be' without objective criteria.

• “The Minister, taking into account the things with regard to which the responsible authority must report under paragraph 21(2)(a) and the recommendation of the responsible authority under paragraph 21(2)(b), shall, as the Minister considers appropriate”

  Final decision rests on the Minister's unfettered sense of what is appropriate.

• “in the opinion of the Governor in Council, ought not to be assessed for reasons of national security”

  Exemption power hinges on the Governor in Council's subjective national-security judgment.

Clear-cut

• “A responsible authority shall not take any course of action under subsection (1) before the 15th day after the inclusion on the Internet site”

  Fixes a clear minimum waiting period measured in days.

Discretion. Ministers, responsible authorities, the Agency and the Governor in Council are repeatedly empowered to decide what is 'appropriate', 'likely', 'satisfactory' or 'in the opinion of' the decision-maker, with almost no statutory limits on those judgments.

Challenging the law itself. The pervasive use of undefined subjective standards such as 'likely to', 'appropriate in the circumstances' and 'in the opinion of' readily engages the Charter vagueness doctrine.

Disputing a charge under it. Because obligations turn on an official's opinion or assessment of likelihood rather than observable facts, a person accused of breaching the Act can readily argue the precondition for liability was never met.

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.