Bill C-17 · 42th Parliament · Justin Trudeau
An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedJune 8, 2016
- Debated in principleJune 20, 2017
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberNov. 9, 2017
- Passed the second chamberDec. 14, 2017
- Became lawDec. 14, 2017
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Justin TrudeauPrime 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 8 June 2016, the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs introduced Bill C-17, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-17 amends the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, in particular by repealing the provisions • that authorize the federal minister to delegate any of his or her powers, duties and functions under that Act to the territorial minister; • that exempt projects and existing projects from the requirement of a new assessment when an authorization is renewed or amended and there are no significant changes to the original project as previously assessed; • that establish time limits for assessments; and • that authorize the federal minister to issue binding policy directions to the Yukon Environmental and Soci…
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
69% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (2,571 words introduced, 978 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The core repeals of delegation powers, project exemptions, time limits and policy directions remained intact. A new transitional clause was added to preserve the pre-2015 assessment rules for projects already underway.
- A transitional provision was inserted to keep the old Act in force for proposals submitted before June 18, 2015.
After: “Ongoing projects 39 The Yukon Environmental and Socio- , as it read immediately before June 18, 2015, continues to apply to a proposal for a project that was submitted before that day.”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill retains heavily subjective tests for project effects and removes fixed time limits and other constraints. This leaves broad room for argument over what counts as significant or likely.
Open to argument
“will have, or is likely to have, significant adverse environmental or socio-economic effects”
Uses 'likely' and 'significant' without definitions or objective thresholds, inviting prolonged debate.“if, after taking into account any mitigative measures included in the project proposal, it cannot determine whether the project will have, or is likely to have”
Subjective inability to determine triggers further process with no clear standard.
Clear-cut
“Section 6.1 of the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act is repealed.”
Direct repeal of a specific numbered section removes the power entirely.“Subsections 56(1.1) to (1.3) of the Act are repealed.”
Exact subsection references eliminate prior rules without ambiguity.
Discretion. Repeal of time limits, delegation rules, and binding policy directions leaves assessment timing and criteria almost entirely to the Board and decision bodies with no statutory guardrails.
Challenging the law itself. Vague 'significant' and 'likely' standards could support a vagueness or overbreadth challenge under Charter s. 7 liberty interests in economic activity.
Disputing a charge under it. Because the core tests are discretionary and predictive, a proponent would struggle to prove the Board applied them incorrectly.
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.