Bill C-40 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Rouge National Urban Park Act
An Act respecting the Rouge National Urban Park
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedJune 13, 2014
- Debated in principleOct. 8, 2014
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJan. 26, 2015
- Passed the second chamberApril 1, 2015
- Became lawApril 22, 2015
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
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
The pre-release version of this Legislative Summary is now available. Parliamentarians and their staff can obtain a copy by submitting a request or contacting the Library of Parliament. Members of the public can obtain a copy by the contacting the Information Service at the Library of Parliament. On 13 June 2014, the Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council of introduced Bill C-40, An Act respecting the Rouge National Urban Park (Rouge National Urban Park Act) in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-40 establishes the Rouge National Urban Park, a new type of federal protected area, and provides for the protection and presentation of its natural and cultural resources and the encouragement of sustainable farming practices within the Park. The enactment confers a broad range of regulatory powers for the management and administration of the Park. It also makes consequential amendments to the Canada Lands Surveys Act, the Parks Canada Agency Act, the Species at Risk Act and the Environmental Violations Administrative Monetary Penalties Act.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
60% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (11,103 words introduced, 10,280 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill established Rouge National Urban Park and set rules for its management, protection of resources, and farming. Formal titles, dates, and a few definitions were updated or completed between introduction and royal assent.
- Updated session, chapter, and assent details on the title page.
Before: “Second Session, Forty-first Parliament, 62-63 Elizabeth II, 2013-2014 HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA BILL C-40 An Act respecting the Rouge National Urban Park FIRST READING, JUNE 13, 2014”
After: “Second Session, Forty-first Parliament, 62-63-64 Elizabeth II, 2013-2014-2015 STATUTES OF CANADA 2015 CHAPTER 10 An Act respecting the Rouge National Urban Park ASSENTED TO 23rd APRIL, 2015”
- Added definition for wild animal.
After: “"wild animal" « animal sauvage »”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The Act supplies many exact numerical fine ranges, defined terms for key conduct, and objective triggers such as reasonable grounds. Some discretion remains for the Minister and officials on management choices and enforcement orders.
Open to argument
“exercised due diligence to prevent its commis”
Open-ended defence standard that courts must interpret case-by-case.
Clear-cut
“a fine of not less than $15,000 and not more than $1,000,000”
Fixed statutory minimum and maximum amounts remove judicial discretion on quantum.“"hunt" means to kill, injure, seize, capture or trap a wild animal, or to attempt to do so”
Enumerated list of acts creates a closed, objective definition.
Discretion. The Minister and superintendent retain broad power to issue orders, set management-plan details, designate officers, and decide what organizations are appropriate for the advisory committee.
Challenging the law itself. Vague phrases such as ministerial appropriateness and due diligence could support a s. 7 Charter vagueness argument, though defined terms and numeric fines limit its strength.
Disputing a charge under it. Precise fine grids and defined offences make factual disputes harder, but reasonable-grounds beliefs and due-diligence defences still allow contest on intent and knowledge.
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.