Bill C-18 · 42th Parliament · Justin Trudeau
An Act to amend the Rouge National Urban Park Act, the Parks Canada Agency Act and the Canada National Parks Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedJune 9, 2016
- Debated in principleNov. 25, 2016
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberFeb. 22, 2017
- Passed the second chamberJune 6, 2017
- Became lawJune 18, 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
On 9 June 2016, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change introduced Bill C-18, An Act to amend the Rouge National Urban Park Act, the Parks Canada Agency Act and the Canada National Parks Act, in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-18 amends the Rouge National Urban Park Act to set out priorities in respect of factors to be considered in the management of the park. Additionally, it adds land to the park. It also amends the Parks Canada Agency Act to allow the New Parks and Historic Sites Account to be used in a broader manner. Finally, it amends the Canada National Parks Act to modify the boundary of Wood Buffalo National Park of 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
39% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (1,078 words introduced, 825 passed).
substantial changeintent broadened
The bill removed limits on the New Parks and Historic Sites Account so it can support parks and sites at any stage of development rather than only those without full operational status. It also dropped the related rules for the Chief Executive Officer to decide when full status is reached and updated enactment dates.
- Replaced the account spending rules that restricted use to sites without full operational status.
Before: “(b) to acquire any real property or immovables for the purpose of establishing, enlarging or designating, as the case may be, any national park, national historic site, national marine conservation area or other protected heritage area that has not yet attained full operational status;”
After: “(c) to develop or maintain any national park, national historic site, national marine conservation area or other protected heritage area that is being established, enlarged or designated, and to make any related contribution or other payment;”
- Eliminated the subsections that required the Chief Executive Officer to determine and set guidelines for full operational status.
Before: “(4) The Chief Executive Officer must, in accordance with the guidelines established under subsection (5), determine whether a national park, national historic site, national marine conservation area or other protected heritage area has attained full operational status for the purposes of paragraphs (3)(b) and (c). (5) The Chief Executive Officer must, with the approval of the Minister, establish guidelines respecting the making of a determination under subsection (4).”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill mixes exact land measurements and numbered parcels with a definition of ecological integrity that hinges on what is 'determined' and 'likely to persist'. Management priority is stated clearly but leaves the weighing of factors to ministerial judgment.
Open to argument
“a condition that is determined to be characteristic of its natural region and likely to persist”
Uses subjective determination and probabilistic language instead of fixed criteria.
Clear-cut
“containing 773.68 hectares, or 7.7368 square kilometres, more or less”
Supplies concrete area figures tied to specific survey plans.“Maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity, through the protection of natural resources and natural processes, must be the first priority of the Minister”
Establishes an explicit, ordered rule for decision-making.
Discretion. The Minister retains broad discretion to decide what constitutes the first priority in any given management decision and how agricultural activities fit alongside it.
Challenging the law itself. The open-ended definition of ecological integrity could be attacked for vagueness under section 7 of the Charter if it affects property or economic interests.
Disputing a charge under it. The provisions impose duties on the Minister rather than direct prohibitions on private conduct, making breach claims difficult to frame.
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.