An Act Creating One of the World's Largest National Park Reserves

An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act to enlarge Nahanni National Park Reserve of Canada

This bill is from the 40th Parliament, 2nd session, which ended in December 2009.

Sponsor

Jim Prentice  Conservative

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.

This enactment amends the Canada National Parks Act to enlarge Nahanni National Park Reserve of Canada while accommodating certain third party interests in the expansion area.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-38s:

C-38 (2022) An Act to amend the Indian Act (new registration entitlements)
C-38 (2017) An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons)
C-38 (2014) Law Appropriation Act No. 2, 2014-15
C-38 (2012) Law Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act

Report StageFisheries ActGovernment Orders

June 11th, 2018 / 8:55 p.m.


See context

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, I want to revisit some of what happened in BillC-38 in 2012. I was not able to put this question to a Conservative member.

The language that was inserted in the Fisheries Act, only protecting fish if they were commercial fish, aboriginal fish, or recreational fish, was language that came straight from a briefing note from the Canadian Electricity Association. It did not come through DFO scientists, did not come from experts; it came from an industry lobby group. It was nothing I had ever seen in Canada. It reminded me of the Bush administration. It put 80% of the 71 freshwater species in this country that are under the Endangered Species Act without any protection at all.

I was not a witness before the committee; I was never able to answer a member's question. However, in my riding, constituents call me all the time about certain stocks that are being overfished or clam beds being overharvested, where they could not get DFO to act because it did not have the resources, and did not have the impetus for fish habitat protection because of the changes made in Bill C-38.

Expansion and Conservation of Canada's National Parks ActGovernment Orders

May 31st, 2013 / 1 p.m.


See context

Calgary Centre-North Alberta

Conservative

Michelle Rempel ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, I was encouraged by the tone of debate earlier today, but I have to express a bit of disappointment in my colleague in turning this debate into a partisan issue, rather than looking at the form and substance of the bill itself as we hopefully take it into committee stage.

I would like to give my colleague the opportunity to speak to a specific recommendation that perhaps she would have and perhaps to take a moment to retract some of the incorrect comments that she made, including the 99% environmental screening component. The Commissioner of the Environment said in the subcommittee on Bill C-38:

The majority of screenings are very small projects for which there are no significant adverse environmental impacts. The agency has estimated that 94% of screenings would not pose significant adverse environmental impacts.

I would like the member to comment on that statement. Since she raised it in debate perhaps she could also talk about whether or not, since the Commissioner of the Environment says that 94% of these small screenings do not have significant environmental impacts, she believes that the money and time spent on these screenings is better spent on no environmental impact rather than the larger environmental impact assessments where the funding is now going.

Message from the SenateGovernment Orders

June 18th, 2009 / 3:45 p.m.


See context

Business of the HouseOral Questions

June 11th, 2009 / 3:05 p.m.


See context

Prince George—Peace River B.C.

Conservative

Jay Hill ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to respond to not just the regular Thursday question about the business of the House for the next week, but indeed to respond to all the questions from my colleague across the way.

In the order that we will dealing with it, today we are debating a motion from the New Democratic Party, which has its supply day today.

Tomorrow we will continue, and hopefully conclude, the third reading stage of Bill C-6, product safety, followed by Bill C-36, the faint hope bill. The backup bill tomorrow will be Bill C-19, the anti-terrorism bill.

Monday, June 15 and Friday, June 19, 2009 shall be allotted days.

On Monday, we will be introducing a bill regarding the Maa-nulth First Nations agreement. It is my intention, provided that I have an agreement from all the other parties, to call and complete that bill on Tuesday. On behalf of that first nation, I express my appreciation to all hon. members and all the parties in the House.

Next week, I will also call Bill C-26, auto theft, for report and third reading. My hope is that we will get that down the hall to get it dealt with at the Senate.

In addition to Bill C-26, we will also consider Bill C-36, the faint hope bill; Bill C-37, National Capital Act; Bill C-38, Nahanni; and Bill C-31, modernizing criminal procedure. All of these bills, as we know, are at second reading.

I am hoping that Bill S-4, identity theft, can be sent over from the Senate expeditiously. If and when it arrives, I will be seeking the cooperation of the opposition to try to expedite that bill in our Chamber.

I might add that despite the assurance of the hon. opposition House leader last week, after we had passed Bill C-33 at all stages, the bill that will extend benefits to allied veterans and their families, I expected the Senate to quickly follow suit. Although sad, it is true that time is running out for some of these veterans and their families. They are waiting to receive these benefits. This bill is not controversial, but the delay of this bill by Liberal senators will become controversial very quickly.

Last week I also mentioned Bill C-29 in my Thursday reply, which the hon. member for Wascana mentioned a minute ago. That is the agricultural loans bill, which will guarantee an estimated $1 billion in loans over the next five years to Canadian farm families and cooperatives. Today the Liberal senators did not grant leave to even consider the bill, let alone agree to adopt it.

Another week has come and gone. I am not sure how the member for Wascana intends to return to farm families in Saskatchewan and explain why his senators in the other place are delaying the passage of Bill C-29.