Bill C-27 · 37th Parliament · Jean Chrétien
Nuclear Fuel Waste Act
An Act respecting the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedApril 25, 2001
- Debated in principleOct. 2, 2001
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberFeb. 26, 2002
- Passed the second chamberJune 12, 2002
- Became lawJune 13, 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
52% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (4,931 words introduced, 4,893 passed).
moderate changeintent mostly kept
The core framework for managing nuclear fuel waste remained intact from introduction to royal assent. The main addition was a requirement that the Advisory Council include expertise in traditional aboriginal knowledge.
- Added representation of traditional aboriginal knowledge on the Advisory Council.
After: “(b.1) reflects expertise in traditional aborig- inal knowledge;”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The Act uses many exact dollar amounts, fixed deadlines, per-day fines and defined terms that make obligations clear. It also contains subjective phrases and broad ministerial or Governor-in-Council discretion that invite argument over scope.
Open to argument
“as the Minister considers necessary”
Subjective standard leaves the need for public consultations to the Minister's opinion rather than an objective test.“at a fee that is reasonable in relation to its costs”
Undefined reasonableness standard invites disputes over what fee level satisfies the duty.“significant socio-economic ef”
Vague adjective and broad concept require case-by-case judgment on what counts as significant.“all reasonable efforts to ensure”
Subjective diligence obligation without measurable criteria for compliance.
Clear-cut
“Ontario Power Generation Inc., $500,000,000”
Exact dollar figure and named entity create a black-and-white deposit obligation.“no later than 10 days after the day on which this Act comes into force”
Fixed calendar trigger and precise time limit eliminate interpretive range.“liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $300,000 for each day”
Numeric maximum and daily multiplier allow immediate calculation of exposure.
Discretion. The Minister may decide the extent of consultations, approve withdrawals and reports, and the Governor in Council selects or approves the management approach, leaving substantial policy choices outside the statute text.
Challenging the law itself. Detailed numeric obligations and defined terms reduce the likelihood of a successful vagueness or overbreadth challenge under the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. Due-diligence defence and phrases such as 'reasonable' or 'significant' give an accused room to argue compliance or lack of breach.
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.