Bill C-28 · 37th Parliament · Paul Martin
An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedMarch 26, 2004
- Debated in principleApril 19, 2004
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMay 3, 2004
- Passed the second chamberMay 12, 2004
- Became lawMay 14, 2004
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Paul MartinPrime 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
56% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (329 words introduced, 315 passed).
minor changeintent kept
The bill passed with only minor administrative updates to publication details and dates. The core provisions on withdrawing lands for Indian reserves stayed identical.
- Publisher name and address were updated in the final version.
Before: “Communications Canada — Canadian Government Publishing Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9”
After: “Public Works and Government Services Canada Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0S5”
How precisely it is written
preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill uses exact legal land descriptions and survey references to redraw park boundaries. Only the timing of the changes is left open.
Clear-cut
“sections 5, 6, 7 and 8, the west half of section 4, the portion of the east half of section 4 lying west of Clear Lake Indian Reserve No. 61A and the southwest quarter of section 18”
Replaces the prior description with numbered sections and halves that can be located on a map without further interpretation.“Parcel 1 and Village Connector Road, as shown on a plan recorded in the Canada Lands Surveys Records at Ottawa as 88700”
Identifies the exact parcel by official plan number, creating an objective boundary.
Discretion. The Governor in Council alone decides when the boundary changes take effect, with no criteria supplied.
Challenging the law itself. The text contains no vague standards or broad powers that would support a vagueness or overbreadth claim under the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. Any dispute would turn on measurable survey facts rather than subjective judgment about whether conduct breached the Act.
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.