Bill C-33 · 37th Parliament · Jean Chrétien
Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act
An Act respecting the water resources of Nunavut and the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedSept. 20, 2001
- Debated in principleSept. 27, 2001
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberNov. 2, 2001
- Passed the second chamberMarch 25, 2002
- Became lawApril 30, 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
53% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (27,950 words introduced, 25,615 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
Over half the bill text was altered between introduction and royal assent, mainly through added clauses and minor wording fixes in the preamble and definitions. Core structure and purpose remained intact while new provisions addressed application of other Acts, binding effect, delegation and provincial agreements.
- Added royal assent date and new substantive sections after preamble.
After: “[Assented to 30th April, 2002]”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill supplies many defined terms and fixed periods that create clear boundaries, yet repeatedly hands the Board power to decide what is appropriate, acceptable or likely. This mix of concrete rules and open-ended discretion produces a middle level of precision.
Open to argument
“where appropriate, public hearings”
The phrase leaves the trigger for hearings to the Board's subjective judgment rather than an objective test.“in the opinion of the Board, has a large circulation in Nunavut”
Circulation size is measured by the Board's own view, not a numerical threshold.“would not be likely to result in a contravention”
The predictive standard 'likely' invites argument over future risk rather than a clear factual line.
Clear-cut
“The term of a licence or any renewal shall not exceed twenty-five years.”
A hard numerical cap removes discretion over maximum duration.“The Board shall give notice at least sixty days in advance”
A fixed minimum notice period supplies an objective timeline.
Discretion. Extensive discretion remains with the Board to set compensation, licence conditions, hearing procedures and urgency exceptions, and with the Minister to approve agreements and expropriation.
Challenging the law itself. The repeated use of 'appropriate', 'opinion' and 'likely' standards could support a vagueness or overbreadth argument under section 7 of the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. A licensee could readily dispute whether effects are 'significant' or compensation 'appropriate' because those tests rest on the Board's evaluative judgment rather than verifiable facts.
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.