Bill S-6 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement Act
An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedJune 2, 2014
- Debated in principleJune 16, 2014
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberOct. 20, 2014
- Passed the second chamberJune 8, 2015
- Became lawJune 17, 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
On 3 June 2014, the Leader of the Government in the Senate introduced Bill S-6, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socioeconomic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act (Yukon and Nunavut Regulatory Improvement Act) in the Senate and it was given first reading. Part 1 of Bill S-6 amends the amends the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act to provide that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 does not apply in Yukon, to allow for the coordination of reviews of transboundary projects, to establish time limits for environmental assessments and to establish a cost recovery regime. It also amends that Act to provide for binding ministerial policy directions to the Board and the delegation of any of the Minister’s powers, duties and functions to the territorial minister, and allows for a member of the board who is participating in a screening or review to continue to act for that purpose after the expiry of their term or their removal due to a loss of residency in Yukon, until decision documents are issued. In addition, it amends that Act to clarify that a new assessment of a project is not required when an authoriz…
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
75% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (13,656 words introduced, 9,539 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
Parliament made extensive revisions to Bill S-6 between its introduction in June 2014 and royal assent in June 2015. While the overall structure and many provisions on environmental assessments remained, numerous sections were altered, added, or removed.
- Added cross-reference to chapter in final statute.
After: “62-63-64 ELIZABETH II —————— CHAPTER 19”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill mixes hard numbers and defined terms for licence terms, fines, and time limits with repeated subjective tests such as 'in the opinion of' and 'likely to have significant adverse effects'. This leaves core assessment decisions open to prolonged argument rather than quick black-and-white application.
Open to argument
“unless, in the opinion of a decision body for the project, there is a significant change”
Subjective 'opinion' and undefined 'significant change' standard invites disagreement over when a new assessment is required.“the project will have, or is likely to have, significant adverse environmental or socio-economic effects”
Repeated use of 'likely to' and 'significant adverse' without objective thresholds creates broad interpretive room.“if, after taking into account any mitigative measures included in the project proposal, it cannot determine whether”
Leaves the threshold for referral or review to the decision-maker's inability to decide, a subjective test.“the capacity of any renewable resources that are likely to be significantly affected”
Combines 'likely' and 'significantly affected' without measurable criteria.
Clear-cut
“to a fine not exceeding $250,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or to both”
Specific dollar and time amounts set objective penalty ceilings.“within 30 days after the day on which it is served”
Exact calendar period removes discretion over timing for review requests.
Discretion. Decision bodies, the Board, and the Minister retain wide latitude through 'in the opinion of' clauses, open-ended 'significant' judgments, and broad regulation-making powers over penalties, cost recovery, and designated provisions.
Challenging the law itself. Vague standards such as 'likely to have significant adverse effects' and 'in the opinion of' could support a section 7 Charter vagueness or overbreadth challenge in environmental assessment contexts.
Disputing a charge under it. While licence terms and fine amounts are objective, the underlying project assessments rest on subjective 'significant' and 'likely' findings that a person could readily dispute.
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.