Bill C-40 · 37th Parliament · Jean Chrétien
Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 2001
An Act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies and errors and to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Statutes of Canada and to repeal certain provisions that have expired, lapsed, or otherwise ceased to have effect
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedNov. 1, 2001
- Debated in principleNov. 2, 2001
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberNov. 2, 2001
- Passed the second chamberDec. 9, 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
61% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (13,100 words introduced, 7,339 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill saw 61% of its introduced text removed or replaced during passage, though its overall purpose remained unchanged. Minor additions such as the royal assent date were inserted and some technical wording was adjusted in the final version.
- Added royal assent date to the bill header.
After: “[Assented to 18th December, 2001]”
- Adjusted phrasing on stock options and financial instruments in section on Petroleum Monitoring Agency.
Before: “in the course of the collection or enforcement of a debtor's obligation to the Agency.”
After: “in the course of the collection or enforcement of a debtor's ob- ligation to the Agency.”
- Clarified coming into force for amendments to the Bank Act.
After: “(2) Subsection (1) is deemed to have come into force on June 17, 1999.”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill mixes narrow technical fixes with objective numbers and defined terms alongside several subjective tests and ministerial opinions. This produces a patchwork where some rules are settled quickly while others invite argument over application.
Open to argument
“the Minister considers appropriate and necessary in respect of energy commodities”
Relies on the Minister's subjective view rather than an objective standard.“not likely to mislead other persons who desire to locate claims in the vicinity”
Employs a predictive and subjective likelihood standard.
Clear-cut
“liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than $1,000”
States a clear maximum penalty with no discretion.“deemed to have come into force on June 17, 1999”
Fixes a precise calendar date for commencement.
Discretion. Ministers and officials retain discretion to decide what reports are appropriate, whether to vary regulations, and whether a mining location substantially complies.
Challenging the law itself. Technical corrective amendments rarely engage Charter vagueness or overbreadth doctrines in a way that would succeed.
Disputing a charge under it. Objective rules such as fixed fines are easy to apply while subjective tests like ministerial satisfaction or likelihood of misleading allow factual disputes.
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.