Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act

How it changed on the way

66% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (288,402 words introduced, 282,856 passed).

moderate changeintent mostly kept

The bill received royal assent on 14 June 2001 with only technical corrections. A cross-reference was fixed and the monitoring clause was expanded to cover commitments as well as codes.

• Corrected subsection reference and broadened monitoring duty to include commitments.

  Before: “(4) When acting under subsection (2), the Commissioner shall have due regard for the role of any department, agency or agent corporation of the Government of Canada or of a province or any organization that has a role in monitoring compliance by financial institutions with voluntary codes of conduct.”

  After: “(4) When acting under subsection (3), the Commissioner shall have due regard for the role of any department, agency or agent corporation of the Government of Canada or of a province or any organization that has a role in monitoring compliance by financial institutions with voluntary codes of conduct or commitments.”

How precisely it is written

vagueChallenging the law: EasyDisputing a charge: Easy

The Act mixes fixed numerical penalties and cross-referenced definitions with repeated grants of power based on what the Commissioner 'considers necessary'. This leaves core compliance and enforcement decisions open to subjective judgment rather than objective tests.

Open to argument

• “The Commissioner may collect any personal information that he or she considers necessary in furtherance of the object”

  Uses a subjective 'considers necessary' test instead of an objective standard for collection of personal information.

• “may make or cause to be made any review that he or she considers necessary to monitor compliance”

  Leaves the scope and trigger of reviews to the Commissioner's unilateral opinion.

Clear-cut

• “The maximum penalty for a violation is $50,000 in the case of a violation that is committed by a natural person, and $100,000 in the case of a violation that is committed by a financial institution.”

  States clear dollar ceilings differentiated by offender type.

• “on summary conviction, to a fine of not more than $2000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months or to both”

  Provides exact maximum fine and jail terms for the offence.

Discretion. Extensive discretion is conferred on the Commissioner to decide what information to collect, what reviews to conduct, what activities further consumer awareness, and what penalty (if any) to impose after representations, with further regulation-making power given to the Governor in Council.

Challenging the law itself. Broad subjective grants of power and undefined terms such as 'necessary' and 'harm' readily engage vagueness and overbreadth arguments under section 7 of the Charter.

Disputing a charge under it. A person can readily dispute whether the Commissioner properly formed the opinion that action was 'necessary' or correctly weighed 'degree of intention' and 'harm' because those standards lack objective benchmarks.

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.