An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act

How it changed on the way

58% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (392 words introduced, 338 passed).

substantial changeintent mostly kept

The bill gained a specific reference to the 2001 Jasper agreement inside section 9 during passage. The core purpose of enabling local land-use powers for Jasper stayed intact.

• Section 9 was expanded to name the Jasper agreement explicitly.

  Before: “except as provided in the agreement referred to in section 35.”

  After: “except as provided in the agreement referred to in section 35 and the Agreement for the Establishment of Local Government in the Town of Jasper between Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada and the Municipality of Jasper, signed by the Minister and the Chairperson of the Jasper Town Committee on June 13 and 25, 2001, respectively, as amended from time to time.”

How precisely it is written

mostly preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate

The bill uses specific dated agreements, named regulations, and an objective trigger date to transfer land-use powers to Jasper's local government. A few references to future amendments and unnamed future regulations leave limited room for argument.

Open to argument

• “as amended from time to time”

  Allows future changes to the 2001 agreement without new parliamentary text, creating uncertainty about scope.

• “any regulation made under this Act that repeals the regulations referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c)”

  Delegates power to create new exempting rules without listing them in advance.

Clear-cut

• “signed by the Minister and the Chairperson of the Jasper Town Committee on June 13 and 25, 2001, respectively”

  Pins the exact document and parties, removing doubt about which agreement applies.

• “beginning on the day on which a municipal by-law applicable to that town respecting land use planning and development comes into force”

  Uses a clear, verifiable external event rather than ministerial opinion.

Discretion. Ministers and officials have almost no ongoing discretion; the non-application of regulations is automatic once the municipal by-law is in force, and the governing agreement is the fixed 2001 text as amended.

Challenging the law itself. The narrow geographic and subject-matter limits make a successful vagueness or overbreadth claim under s. 7 of the Charter unlikely.

Disputing a charge under it. A person could dispute whether a particular by-law has actually come into force or whether an activity falls inside the listed regulations, but the factual test is straightforward.

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.