Bill C-474 · 39th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Federal Sustainable Development Act
An Act to require the development and implementation of a Federal Sustainable Development Strategy and the development of goals and targets with respect to sustainable development in Canada, and to make consequential amendments to another Act
Private member’s bill. Became law.
- IntroducedNov. 13, 2007
- Debated in principleFeb. 13, 2008
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 13, 2008
- Passed the second chamberJune 25, 2008
- Became lawJune 26, 2008
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Grant MitchellSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- John Godfrey6 interventions in debateintroduces and expresses support for the bill
- Mark Warawa3 interventions in debateaffirms government commitment to sustainable development and bill process
- Pierre Claude NolinSenate · SenatorThe bill establishes the long-requested federal sustainable development strategy even if imperfect.
- Tommy BanksSenate · SenatorThe bill puts in place a federal sustainable development strategy that the committee has sought for years.
- Elaine McCoySenate · SenatorThe bill advances sustainable development goals and should not be allowed to die.
- Maurice Vellacottstates government belief in and action on sustainable development
- Francis Scarpaleggiapraises the sponsor and his environmental expertise in presenting the bill.
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
That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. · 2008-02-13 · Passed
How it changed on the way
95% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (2,790 words introduced, 2,298 passed). A committee amended it.
transformative changeintent changed direction
The bill shifted from creating an independent Commissioner and a National Sustainable Development Strategy with prescriptive goals and indicators to a Federal Sustainable Development Strategy overseen by a Privy Council committee and departmental plans. Most original definitions, specific goals, and petition powers were dropped in favor of internal monitoring and a 120-day consultation process.
- Replaced independent Commissioner appointment and powers with role under Auditor General Act.
Before: “The enactment also provides for the appointment of an independent Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development by the Governor in Council.”
After: “It also amends the Auditor General Act to give the Commissioner the mission to monitor the progress that these departments and agencies make in implementing the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Hard
The Act relies on broad, open-ended definitions and principles that leave wide room for interpretation. Specific timelines and reporting duties exist but sit inside discretionary powers and subjective standards.
Open to argument
“where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation”
The precautionary principle uses subjective thresholds of seriousness, irreversibility and cost-effectiveness without measurable criteria.“appropriate to the department or agency's mandate”
The qualifier invites argument over what counts as appropriate without an objective test.“regulations for the purpose of achieving any of the goals of this Act”
Regulation-making power is tied to the Act’s open-ended goals instead of enumerated matters.
Clear-cut
“within one year after the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy is tabled”
A fixed calendar deadline removes discretion on timing.“a period of not less than 120 days”
Minimum review period is stated in exact days.“at least once every three years”
Update frequency is expressed as a clear numerical interval.
Discretion. Ministers decide strategy content, the Governor in Council chooses which extra agencies are covered and may issue regulations on any goal, and the Commissioner determines the scope of monitoring.
Challenging the law itself. The Act imposes framework duties on government rather than restricting individual rights, so vagueness or overbreadth claims under s. 7 of the Charter would face high hurdles.
Disputing a charge under it. Departments face reporting and strategy obligations rather than clear prohibitions, making it difficult to prove or dispute a concrete 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?
The evidence has not been searched yet.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.