Bill C-6 · 37th Parliament · Jean Chrétien
An Act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedFeb. 5, 2001
- Debated in principleMay 8, 2001
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberOct. 2, 2001
- Passed the second chamberDec. 17, 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
33% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (1,899 words introduced, 1,872 passed).
moderate changeintent mostly kept
The core prohibitions, licensing scheme and penalties remained intact. Parliament added a clause on aboriginal rights and the royal assent date while making minor wording and numbering adjustments.
- Royal assent date was added to the long title.
After: “[Assented to 18th December, 2001]”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill mixes narrow, objective rules such as fixed fines and specific licence requirements with subjective phrases that invite argument. Broad regulation-making power and ministerial discretion further blur what is allowed.
Open to argument
“affects, or is likely to affect, in any way the natural level or flow”
Uses the subjective 'likely to' standard instead of a measurable threshold.“the Minister believes on reasonable grounds”
Leaves suspension or revocation to the Minister's personal assessment rather than an objective test.“subject to any terms or conditions the Minister considers appropri”
Grants open-ended discretion over licence conditions without statutory limits.
Clear-cut
“A contravention of subsection 11(1), 12(1) or 13(1) that is committed or continued on more than one day is deemed to constitute a separate offence for each day”
Provides an explicit rule for counting continuing offences.
Discretion. The Minister may issue licences on any conditions considered appropriate, suspend or revoke them on reasonable grounds, make orders, and recommend wide-ranging regulations that define key terms and exceptions.
Challenging the law itself. Vague phrases such as 'likely to affect' and 'reasonable grounds' could support a vagueness or overbreadth challenge under section 7 of the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. An accused could dispute whether an activity meets the 'likely to affect' or 'reasonable grounds' standards, though the fixed penalties and daily-deeming rule are harder to contest.
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.