An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood)

How it changed on the way

85% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (212 words introduced, 204 passed).

minor changeintent kept

The bill's core rule on considering environmental benefits and allowing wood or other materials stayed intact. Only a single word changed from must to shall, plus routine updates for the new monarch and later dates.

• Changed the mandatory verb in the new subsection.

  Before: “the Minister must consider any potential reduction in greenhouse gas emissions”

  After: “the Minister shall consider any potential reduction in greenhouse gas emissions”

• Updated reference to the monarch.

  Before: “Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent”

  After: “His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent”

How precisely it is written

vagueChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Hard

The text uses broad subjective phrases that leave the Minister wide latitude to decide what counts as an environmental benefit. No definitions or objective tests narrow the scope of what may be allowed.

Open to argument

• “any potential reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and any other environmental benefits”

  The phrase relies on an open-ended subjective judgment without any measurable standard or defined threshold.

• “that achieves such benefits”

  The term 'achieves' invites prolonged argument over causation and degree with no objective test supplied.

• “may allow the use of wood or any other thing — including a material, product or sustainable resource”

  The inclusive wording grants essentially unlimited discretion over materials without limits or criteria.

Clear-cut

• “construction, maintenance and repair of public works, federal real property and federal immovables”

  The clause lists specific categories of property with defined legal meanings in federal statutes.

Discretion. Virtually all decisions on what qualifies as an environmental benefit and whether to permit any given material are left to the Minister's opinion with no regulatory constraints or review criteria stated.

Challenging the law itself. The provision creates only an internal ministerial power and imposes no direct limits on individuals, so no Charter rights such as section 2(b) or 7 are engaged on the face of the text.

Disputing a charge under it. The text places a duty only on the Minister rather than creating any offence or prohibition that a private person could be accused of breaching.

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.