Bill C-31 · 37th Parliament · Jean Chrétien
An Act to amend the Pension Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedApril 10, 2003
- Debated in principleApril 28, 2003
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 3, 2003
- Passed the second chamberJune 16, 2003
- Became lawJune 19, 2003
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
66% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (3,466 words introduced, 2,742 passed).
minor changeintent kept
The bill received royal assent on 19 June 2003 with no other alterations. All substantive provisions on special duty service and related pension rules remained unchanged from introduction.
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill relies heavily on subjective ministerial opinions to define and designate special duty areas and operations, leaving broad discretion over what counts as elevated risk. Precise elements like fixed dates and listed inclusions for training and travel are overshadowed by undefined standards and opinion-based tests.
Open to argument
“in the opinion of the Minister of National Defence, is a search and rescue operation”
This subjective test allows the minister to decide coverage without objective criteria.“a level of risk higher than that normally associated with service in peacetime”
The comparative standard is undefined and invites prolonged argument over normal risk levels.“an operation involving a level of risk that, in the opinion of the Minister of National Defence, is comparable to that normally associated with an operation re”
Catch-all clause depends entirely on ministerial judgment without measurable benchmarks.
Clear-cut
“not earlier than September 11, 2001”
Specific calendar date creates a clear temporal boundary for included training, travel and leave.“periods of training for the express purpose of service in that area or as part of that operation, wherever that training takes place”
Explicitly lists what is included and removes location as a variable.
Discretion. Ministers of National Defence and the Solicitor General hold wide power to designate areas and operations, and to decide what constitutes elevated or comparable risk, with only a consultation requirement and no statutory definitions or objective thresholds.
Challenging the law itself. Vagueness and overbreadth doctrines under the Charter could be invoked because key eligibility terms rest on ministerial opinion rather than fixed standards, potentially affecting equality rights in pension access.
Disputing a charge under it. The provisions create benefits rather than prohibitions, so disputes would centre on whether a designation was properly made rather than on proving a breach by an individual.
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.