Bill C-61 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Lake Superior National Marine Conservation Area Act
An Act to amend the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedJune 2, 2015
- Debated in principleJune 17, 2015
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 17, 2015
- Passed the second chamberJune 22, 2015
- Became lawJune 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 2 June 2015, the Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council introduced Bill C-61, An Act to amend the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act (Lake Superior National Marine Conservation Area Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Lake Superior is the largest freshwater lake in the world. The shores of the National Marine Conservation Area (NMCA) showcase the region’s geology, prominently displaying its volcanic origins, as well as evidence of a meteorite impact. More than 70 species of fish inhabit the near-pristine waters, including lake herring, walleye, yellow perch, lake whitefish, lake trout and brook trout. Ring-billed and herring gulls, cormorants, great blue herons and white pelicans feed in these waters. National marine conservation areas are part of the Parks Canada…
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
59% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (1,268 words introduced, 1,154 passed).
minor changeintent kept
Bill C-61 passed through Parliament without any amendments to its provisions. It received royal assent on June 23, 2015, and was published as chapter 38 of the Statutes of Canada 2015.
- The bill was enacted with its chapter number and assent date added.
Before: “BILL C-61 An Act to amend the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act FIRST READING, JUNE 2, 2015”
After: “STATUTES OF CANADA 2015 CHAPTER 38 An Act to amend the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act ASSENTED TO 23rd JUNE, 2015”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill incorporates Ontario water laws by reference with explicit definitions and a closed list of matters that apply inside the federal area. It carves out federal enforcement roles and names the exact provincial statutes and tribunals involved.
Open to argument
“as those provisions are amended from time to time”
Repeated incorporation of future changes leaves the exact content dependent on external amendments rather than fixed text.“For greater certainty, the laws of Ontario whose provisions concerning water taking and water transfer apply”
The phrase signals an attempt to clarify scope but still relies on interpretive judgment about which Ontario provisions qualify.
Clear-cut
“"water taking" means the taking of water within the meaning of the Ontario Water Resources Act or any regulations made under it”
Definition ties the term directly to an existing statute and its regulations, avoiding open-ended language.“The Statutory Instruments Act does not apply to any instrument that is made or issued under any of the provisions”
Clear exemption eliminates one layer of federal procedural requirements.
Discretion. Almost none is left to federal ministers or superintendents; enforcement and permitting rest with Ontario officials and tribunals under Ontario statutes.
Challenging the law itself. The text uses defined terms and a narrow subject-matter carve-out, making a successful vagueness or overbreadth argument under the Charter difficult.
Disputing a charge under it. A person could dispute whether a given activity meets the Ontario definitions of water taking or transfer, but the cross-references themselves are specific.
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.