Bill C-55 · 42th Parliament · Justin Trudeau
An Act to amend the Oceans Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedJune 15, 2017
- Debated in principleOct. 17, 2017
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberApril 25, 2018
- Passed the second chamberMay 2, 2019
- Became lawMay 26, 2019
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 15 June 2017, the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard introduced Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Oceans Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act, in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-55, amends the Oceans Act to, among other things, (a) clarify the responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to establish a national network of protected areas; (b) empower the Minister to designate marine protected areas by order and prohibit certain activities in those areas; (c) provide that, within five years after the day on which the order of the Minister designating a marine protected area comes into force, the Minister is to make a recommendation to the Governor in Council to make regulations to replace that order or is to repeal it; (d) provide that the Governor in Council and Minister cannot use the lack of scientific certainty regarding the risks posed by any activity as a reason to postpone or refrain from exercising their powers or performing their duties and functions under subsection 35(3) or 35.1(2); (e) update and strengthen the powers of enforcement officers; (f) update the Act’s offence provisions, in particular to incr…
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
26% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (8,973 words introduced, 7,976 passed). A committee amended it.
moderate changeintent broadened
The bill added a definition of ecological integrity, new ministerial duties on objectives and habitat diversity, and a requirement to publish reports on ministerial orders. It also introduced explicit liability for seizure costs and detailed offence penalties applying to both persons and ships.
- Added definition of ecological integrity as a new purpose for marine protected areas.
After: “Definition of ecological integrity (1.1) For the purpose of paragraph (1)(f), ecological integrity means a condition in which (a) the structure, composition and function of ecosystems are undisturbed by any human activity;”
- Required the Minister to set clear objectives and ensure the network covers diverse habitats and regions.
After: “Performance of duties and functions (2.1) In performing his or her duties and functions under subsection (2), the Minister shall ensure that: (a) clearly identified objectives are set with regard to each marine protected area; and (b) the network of marine protected areas covers diverse habitat types, biogeographic regions and environmental conditions.”
- Required publication of a report summarizing consultations and information considered for each ministerial order.
After: “Publication of report (4) If an order is made under subsection (2), the Minister shall publish, in any manner that the Minister considers appropriate, a report (a) indicating the area of the sea designated in the order; (b) summarizing the consultations undertaken prior to making the order; and (c) summarizing the information that the Minister considered when making the order, which may include environmental, social, cultural or economic information.”
- Made owners and entitled persons jointly liable for costs of inspection, seizure and disposition.
After: “Liability for costs 39.5 The lawful owner and any person lawfully entitled to possession of any thing seized, detained, abandoned or forfeited under this Act are jointly and severally, or solidarily, liable for all the costs of inspection, seizure, detention, abandonment, forfeiture or disposition incurred by Her Majesty in right of Canada in excess of any proceeds of disposition of the thing that have been forfeited to Her Majesty under this Act.”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill sets exact fine ranges, tonnage cut-offs, and 30-day windows yet repeatedly uses subjective phrases such as 'reasonable grounds to believe' and 'considers appropriate'. These open-ended standards dominate the enforcement and designation sections.
Open to argument
“reasonable grounds to believe”
This subjective test appears in inspection, seizure, detention and compliance-order powers, inviting disputes over what facts suffice.“any conditions that the Minister considers appropriate”
The phrase grants open-ended discretion to exempt foreign actors from core prohibitions.“is likely to do so”
The 'likely' standard for prohibited activities lacks an objective threshold and relies on prediction.“in any manner that the Minister considers appropriate”
Publication and sampling decisions are left to ministerial preference without statutory criteria.
Clear-cut
“not less than $15,000 and not more than $1,000,000”
Indictable fines for individuals are fixed with clear minimums and maximums.“7 500 tonnes deadweight or more”
Ship penalties are divided by an exact tonnage threshold.“within 30 days after the day on which the order is made”
Clear time limit governs when clearance may be given after detention.
Discretion. Ministers and enforcement officers retain wide latitude to decide what activities disturb habitat, what measures are 'reasonable', when to detain ships, and what conditions to impose.
Challenging the law itself. The repeated use of 'reasonable grounds', 'likely', and open-ended exemptions could support a vagueness or overbreadth claim under Charter s. 7 liberty interests.
Disputing a charge under it. An accused can readily dispute whether an officer's subjective belief was objectively reasonable or whether an activity was 'likely' to cause harm.
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.