Bill C-23 · 37th Parliament · Jean Chrétien
An Act to amend the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedApril 4, 2001
- Debated in principleDec. 7, 2001
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberDec. 10, 2001
- Passed the second chamberMay 8, 2002
- Became lawJune 4, 2002
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Jean ChrétienPrime 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.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
68% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (11,474 words introduced, 12,727 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill kept its core framework for mutual legal assistance agreements but added new confidentiality exceptions and narrowed the permitted uses of records obtained from Canada. Several procedural details on undertakings by foreign states were also trimmed or adjusted before royal assent.
- Replaced subsection 29(2) to exclude voluntarily provided information from confidentiality rules.
After: “(e) any information provided voluntarily pursuant to this Act.”
- Removed the clause allowing further use of records if Canada and the provider agree in writing.
Before: “that any record or thing provided by Canada will be used only for the purpose for which it was requested, unless Cana- da and the person from whom the record or thing was obtained agree in writing that it may be used for another purpose,”
After: “that any record or thing provided by Canada will be used only for the purpose for which it was requested,”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: EasyDisputing a charge: Easy
The bill mixes narrow defined terms with many subjective standards and discretionary powers that require prolonged argument to apply. Objective elements like fixed fines and time limits are outnumbered by phrases inviting case-by-case judgment.
Open to argument
“it would not, in the circumstances, be appropriate to make an order”
Leaves appropriateness to judicial opinion without defined criteria.“any terms and conditions that the judge considers desirable”
Grants open-ended discretion to set conditions.“is likely to have an adverse effect on competition in a market”
Relies on a predictive likelihood test open to differing interpretations.
Clear-cut
“at least five days before the time of the hearing”
Fixes a clear minimum period.“fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to both”
States exact maximum penalties.
Discretion. The Minister of Justice decides whether to approve foreign requests and judges decide warrants, orders, terms, and access steps they consider necessary or desirable.
Challenging the law itself. Broad subjective phrases such as 'appropriate' and 'reasonable grounds' engage section 7 Charter vagueness and overbreadth doctrines.
Disputing a charge under it. A person can readily dispute whether 'reasonable grounds' existed or whether conduct was 'likely' or 'appropriate' to restrain.
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.