Bill C-4 · 37th Parliament · Jean Chrétien
An Act to amend the Nuclear Safety and Control Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedOct. 3, 2002
- Debated in principleOct. 29, 2002
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberDec. 10, 2002
- Passed the second chamberFeb. 11, 2003
- Became lawFeb. 13, 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
59% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (264 words introduced, 202 passed).
substantial changeintent narrowed
The bill was amended during passage to vary the classes of persons the Commission may order to reduce contamination levels. 59% of the introduced text changed, including removal of the broad order authority over owners, occupants and interest holders plus addition of the royal assent date.
- The subsection allowing orders against owners, occupants or other interest holders was removed and the classes of persons varied.
Before: “the owner or occupant of, or any other person with a right to or interest in, the affected land or place take the prescribed measures to reduce the level of contamination.”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard
The provision relies on the Commission's subjective satisfaction after a hearing and on measures defined elsewhere in regulations. It also uses broad language to identify who can be ordered to act.
Open to argument
“the Commission is satisfied that there is contami”
This is a subjective standard rather than an objective test that can be verified independently.“take the prescribed measures to reduce the level of contamination”
Prescribed measures are left undefined in the Act itself and depend on future regulations.“any other person who has the management and control of, the affected land or place”
This open-ended class expands the reach without clear limits on who qualifies.
Clear-cut
“after conducting a hearing”
This imposes a mandatory procedural step before any order can be made.“in addition to filing a notice under subsection (2)”
This ties the new power to an existing, specific statutory step.
Discretion. The Commission decides both whether contamination exists and what measures are required, while the content of those measures is left entirely to regulations.
Challenging the law itself. The subjective satisfaction test and broad reach to any person with management or control could be challenged under section 7 of the Charter for vagueness or overbreadth.
Disputing a charge under it. Once an order is issued, compliance is a factual question of whether the named person carried out the specific steps listed in that order.
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.