An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Poet Laureate)

How it changed on the way

96% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (370 words introduced, 282 passed).

substantial changeintent mostly kept

The bill kept the creation of the Parliamentary Poet Laureate position but replaced the fixed appointment schedule and mandatory duties with a flexible term at the Speakers' pleasure and permissive roles. A provision for substitutes was dropped and the establishment clause was reworded.

• Substitute appointment section was removed entirely.

  Before: “If the Parliamentary Librarian advises the Speakers that a Parliamentary Poet Laureate is unable or unwilling to serve, they may select and appoint a successor, in the manner provided in this section, to serve the remainder of the term and a full term thereafter.”

How precisely it is written

mostly preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Hard

The bill uses specific numbers, named officials, and a fixed committee list to create the Poet Laureate post and its selection process. Some discretion remains in the term length and the optional nature of the duties.

Open to argument

• “at the pleasure of the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons acting together”

  This phrase gives the Speakers broad, subjective power to end the term without any stated objective test.

Clear-cut

• “from a list of three names submitted in confidence by a committee chaired by the Parliamentary Librarian and also composed of the National Librarian, the National Archivist of Canada, the Commissioner of Official Languages for Canada, and the Chair of the Canada Council”

  The exact number of names and the named titles of every committee member create a clear, objective selection mechanism.

• “holds office for a term not exceeding two years”

  The two-year maximum supplies a concrete numerical limit on tenure.

Discretion. The two Speakers acting together decide both the selection from the list and when to end the term, with no further rules or regulations required.

Challenging the law itself. The enactment creates an office and imposes no duties or limits on individuals, so no Charter rights are engaged and vagueness or overbreadth claims would be difficult to raise.

Disputing a charge under it. The text creates no offences or prohibitions, so there is no violation that a person could 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.