Bill C-15 · 38th Parliament · Paul Martin
An Act to amend the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedOct. 26, 2004
- Debated in principleDec. 13, 2004
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberDec. 14, 2004
- Passed the second chamberMay 17, 2005
- Became lawMay 19, 2005
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
76% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (16,922 words introduced, 13,923 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The core prohibitions, definitions and obligations on vessel pollution remained intact from introduction to royal assent. Enforcement powers were expanded with new inspection authorities added during passage.
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill supplies many exact definitions and fixed dollar or tonnage thresholds that make some rules clear. At the same time it repeatedly uses officer beliefs on reasonable grounds and court opinions about harm or risk, leaving wide room for argument.
Open to argument
“believe, on reasonable grounds, that the person has committed an offence”
Turns enforcement on an official's subjective assessment rather than an objective fact.“major damage to the environment, or an actual threat of major damage to the environ”
Uses an undefined qualitative standard that invites disputes over degree and likelihood.“could, in the opinion of the court, result in the continuation or repetition of the offence”
Grants the court open-ended discretion based on its own view rather than a fixed test.
Clear-cut
“a fine of not more than $1,000,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both”
States exact maximum penalties in numbers.“vessel of 5,000 tonnes deadweight or over”
Applies a clear numeric tonnage threshold for minimum fines.“within 30 days after the day on which the order is made”
Fixes a precise calendar period for clearance rules.
Discretion. Game officers decide when to board, detain or arrest on reasonable grounds, and courts decide additional orders and sentencing factors with little further statutory limit.
Challenging the law itself. The repeated use of reasonable grounds and undefined harm standards could support a vagueness or overbreadth argument under section 7 of the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. Presumptions that acts by employees or persons on board are attributed to the vessel or corporation make it harder for an accused to contest liability once facts are shown.
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
No statutory or parliamentary reviews, Auditor General reports, or targeted departmental evaluations specifically assess the effectiveness of the 2005 amendments in Bill C-15. A 2018 ECCC evaluation of the broader Migratory Birds Program notes strengths in harvest management but highlights data gaps and enforcement challenges without addressing the bill's vessel pollution or EEZ provisions.
- Evaluation of the Migratory Birds Program (ECCC, 2018)evaluationThe program has been effective in maintaining sustainable harvests but faces data gaps for ~30% of species and needs better enforcement and stakeholder engagement.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.