Bill C-34 · 37th Parliament · Jean Chrétien
Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada Act
An Act to establish the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedSept. 26, 2001
- Debated in principleOct. 4, 2001
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberOct. 26, 2001
- Passed the second chamberNov. 27, 2001
- Became lawDec. 18, 2001
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
60% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (23,705 words introduced, 18,552 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill passed with the addition of the royal assent date and minor expansions to notice requirements in aviation document provisions. Core structure, jurisdiction, membership rules, and transitional clauses remained intact despite 60% of the introduced text being altered or replaced.
- Added royal assent date to the bill header.
After: “[Assented to 18th December, 2001]”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: EasyDisputing a charge: Easy
The text relies heavily on subjective phrases such as ministerial opinions and what the Chairperson considers appropriate or necessary. This leaves many decisions open to argument rather than settling them by clear rules or numbers.
Open to argument
“persons who, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, collectively have expertise”
Uses an undefined subjective standard instead of objective criteria for appointments.“if he or she considers it appropriate”
Grants the Chairperson broad discretion without measurable limits on panel size.“the Minister is of the opinion that the public interest and, in particular, the avi”
Rests on the Minister's personal view rather than fixed statutory tests.
Clear-cut
“within three months after the interest vests”
Sets a fixed time limit for divestiture or resignation.“shall not be earlier than thirty days after the notice is served or sent”
Provides an exact minimum notice period before suspension takes effect.“(a) in the case of an individual, to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both”
States specific maximum penalties in clear numerical terms.
Discretion. Ministers, the Chairperson and Tribunal members are repeatedly given power to act on their own opinions, beliefs or assessments of necessity or appropriateness, with many details left to regulations.
Challenging the law itself. Frequent subjective standards such as 'in the opinion of' and 'considers it necessary' engage the Charter doctrines of vagueness and overbreadth under section 7.
Disputing a charge under it. A person facing a penalty or suspension can readily argue that the Minister's or Chairperson's subjective belief or opinion was not properly formed or applied.
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.