Bill C-50 · 37th Parliament · Jean Chrétien
An Act to amend certain Acts as a result of the accession of the People's Republic of China to the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedFeb. 5, 2002
- Debated in principleMarch 22, 2002
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberApril 26, 2002
- Passed the second chamberJune 11, 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
64% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (11,088 words introduced, 9,853 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill kept its core purpose of implementing Canada's rights under China's WTO accession protocol through amendments to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act on market disruption inquiries. However, 64% of the introduced text was altered, with French-version subsection replacements removed and an assent date plus a new tabling provision added.
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill supplies definitions for market disruption and significant cause yet repeatedly conditions action on the Governor in Council or Minister forming an opinion that an order is necessary or that circumstances are critical. This combination of defined terms with broad subjective discretion produces drafting that is more open-textured than black-and-white.
Open to argument
“it appears to the satisfaction of the Governor in Council”
The phrase substitutes a subjective state of mind for an objective factual test.“in the opinion of the Governor in Council is sufficient to prevent or remedy market disruption”
Rate-setting power is bounded only by the decision-maker's own view rather than a statutory formula.
Clear-cut
“an important cause that need not be as important as, or more important than, any other cause”
The definition of significant cause supplies a clear comparative test that narrows the causation inquiry.“within thirty days after the request is filed”
The timeline for commencing an inquiry is fixed and measurable.
Discretion. Virtually every operative decision—whether to impose, extend, or repeal a surtax or import restriction—is left to the Governor in Council or Minister once they form the requisite opinion or satisfaction after a Tribunal inquiry.
Challenging the law itself. The repeated use of 'opinion' and 'satisfaction' standards creates room for a vagueness or overbreadth argument under section 7 of the Charter, though economic regulation receives deferential review.
Disputing a charge under it. Once an order is made, the importer's liability turns on the published order itself rather than on proving the underlying market facts, leaving little room to contest the violation in enforcement proceedings.
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.