Bill C-16 · 40th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Environmental Enforcement Act
An Act to amend certain Acts that relate to the environment and to enact provisions respecting the enforcement of certain Acts that relate to the environment
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedMarch 4, 2009
- Debated in principleMarch 25, 2009
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMay 13, 2009
- Passed the second chamberJune 15, 2009
- Became lawJune 18, 2009
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
- Richard NeufeldSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- David McGuintyexpresses pleasure at speaking to the bill and thanks officials for drafting it
- Mark Warawapraises the bill as complementing enforcement efforts and providing strong deterrents with minimum and maximum sentences.
- Dean Del Mastrostates the bill has all-party support for its fundamental principles at third reading
- Yasmin Ratansicalls the bill a first step that addresses shortcomings with stronger enforcement.
- Grant MitchellSenate · SenatorStates explicit support for the bill and expects it to pass, while noting it does not go far enough on climate change.
- Jim Prenticeintroduces the bill to amend environmental acts and enact enforcement provisions.
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.
What it set out to do
On 4 March 2009, the Minister of the Environment introduced Bill C-16, An Act to amend certain Acts that relate to the environment and to enact provisions respecting the enforcement of certain Acts that relate to the environment, in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. The bill amends nine existing statutes that are administered by Environment Canada and the Parks Canada Agency. Among other things it: • amends the penalty provisions of the Acts to establish distinct ranges of fines for different offences, creates minimum fines for the most serious offences, increases maximum fines, doubles fines for repeat offenders, and specifies ranges of fines depending on the offender; • amends the sentencing provisions of the Acts so that environmental damages, prior convictions and other relevant factors are taken into account and treated as aggravating factors; • establishes a requirement that details of convictions of corporations be made available to the public and that all fines collected be credited to the Environmental Damages Fund and be available for environmental projects or the administration of that Fund; • adds enforcement officer immunity to the Acts that did not …
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
How it changed on the way
77% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (74,582 words introduced, 60,167 passed). A committee amended it.
minor changeintent mostly kept
The bill passed largely intact with the core penalty, sentencing and enforcement amendments unchanged. Minor additions completed truncated sections on compliance orders and added assent details.
- Completed the cut-off notice of intent provision for orders.
Before: “(a) provide every person who will be subject to the order with an or”
After: “(a) provide every person who will be subject to the order with an oral or written notice of the officer's intention to issue it;”
- Added details on contents of notice of intent.
After: “(2) The notice of intent to issue the order must include Contents of notice of intent (a) a statement of the purpose of the notice;”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill sets exact fine ranges, minimums, vessel tonnage thresholds and listed offences that leave little room for argument. Yet enforcement powers rest on phrases such as reasonable grounds, likely contravention and measures the officer considers necessary.
Open to argument
“in any manner that the officer or analyst considers appropriate”
Subjective standard lets officials decide disposal without fixed criteria.“likely to be contravened”
Predictive judgment replaces concrete breach requirement.
Clear-cut
“fine of not less than $15,000 and not more than $1,000,000”
Numeric minimum and maximum fix penalties for first indictable offences by individuals.“vessel of 7 500 tonnes deadweight or over”
Objective tonnage threshold determines higher fine bracket.“within 30 days after the day on which the order was made”
Fixed calendar period governs when clearance may be given.
Discretion. Enforcement officers decide when to issue compliance orders, what measures to require, and whether to direct vessels, with only later court review.
Challenging the law itself. Vague terms such as 'likely' and 'considers necessary' could support a vagueness or overbreadth claim under Charter s. 7.
Disputing a charge under it. Specific offence lists and numeric fines make some violations straightforward to contest, but discretionary order language allows factual disputes over reasonableness.
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?
effective
The sole official evaluation, a mandated 10-year statutory review by ECCC and Parks Canada, concluded that the fines and sentencing provisions introduced by the Environmental Enforcement Act advance the regime's goals of deterrence, denunciation, polluter-pays, and restoration while remaining consistent with public values and circumstances, with courts imposing substantially higher fines than pre-EEA maxima. No Parliamentary Budget Officer, Auditor General, or peer-reviewed studies evaluating the Act's overall effectiveness were identified.
- Report on the Review of the Federal Environmental Fines and Sentencing Regime – 10 years laterreviewThe review found the fine amounts and sentencing principles continue to advance the fundamental purposes of sentencing and remain consistent with public values, as evidenced by much higher fines imposed post-EEA (millions vs. prior $100k max) and the relevance of minimum fines and aggravating factors.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.