Bill C-43 · 37th Parliament · Jean Chrétien
An Act to amend certain Acts and instruments and to repeal the Fisheries Prices Support Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedNov. 22, 2001
- Debated in principleNov. 30, 2001
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberApril 12, 2002
- Passed the second chamberJune 10, 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
45% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (6,037 words introduced, 4,521 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill kept its core purpose of amending multiple acts and repealing the Fisheries Prices Support Act but added residency rules for appointments and a detailed boundary description. It also gained an assent date and extra legal-proceedings language during passage.
- Added clause allowing Her Majesty to continue legal proceedings after the Board is wound up.
After: “ceeding in respect of any right of the Board, or any right acquired by the Minister in closing out the affairs of the Board, may be brought by Her Majesty in any court that would have had jurisdiction if the action, suit or proceeding had been brought by the Board.”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill uses many defined terms and specific numeric or age-based rules for pensions, board composition and meetings, making those parts black-and-white. However, several operative clauses grant open-ended discretion to ministers and commissions using phrases such as 'necessary' or 'as it considers'.
Open to argument
“as it considers necessary for the purposes of this Act”
Subjective standard lets the Commission decide the scope of hiring without objective limits.“perform and do all acts and things necessary for and incidental to closing out the affairs of the Board”
Broad, undefined phrase leaves the Minister wide latitude with no clear boundaries.“such payment for their services and such expenses as are fixed by the Commission”
No objective test or cap; amount is left entirely to Commission discretion.
Clear-cut
“comes payable to a person at the time he or she reaches sixty years of age”
Exact age threshold creates an objective trigger for pension entitlement.“ing of six members to be appointed by the Governor in Council”
Fixed number removes ambiguity about board size.“at least once in each year”
Clear minimum frequency for meetings.
Discretion. Ministers and commissions retain broad power to decide what hiring, payments, agreements and closing-out steps are 'necessary', with little statutory constraint.
Challenging the law itself. The text contains no obvious vagueness or overbreadth that would readily engage Charter section 7 or 2(b) vagueness doctrines.
Disputing a charge under it. Most obligations are narrow name changes or numeric rules that are easy to verify, but discretionary 'necessary' clauses could be disputed.
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.