Bill C-42 · 37th Parliament · Jean Chrétien
Antarctic Environmental Protection Act
An Act respecting the protection of the Antarctic Environment
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedJune 6, 2003
- Debated in principleJune 13, 2003
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 13, 2003
- Passed the second chamberOct. 6, 2003
- Became lawOct. 20, 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
57% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (12,633 words introduced, 12,373 passed).
minor changeintent kept
The bill passed with only the addition of the royal assent date and minor formatting adjustments. All substantive provisions on Antarctic environmental protection remained unchanged from introduction to royal assent.
- Added the date of royal assent after the bill title.
After: “[Assented to 20th October, 2003]”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Easy
The Act mixes clear definitions with repeated subjective tests that turn on ministerial opinion or likelihood of harm. This leaves wide room for argument over what conduct is covered or permitted.
Open to argument
“the Minister may include in a permit any condition that he or she considers appropriate.”
Uses an open-ended subjective standard instead of fixed criteria.“the enforcement officer or the Minister is satisfied that it is not necessary in the public interest to continue to detain the thing”
Rests on an undefined public-interest judgment rather than objective facts.“respecting any other matter that the Governor in Council considers necessary for carrying out the purposes of this Act.”
Grants an unlimited residual power to regulate anything deemed useful.
Clear-cut
“''permit'' means a permit issued under section”
Cross-references a specific numbered provision.
Discretion. Extensive discretion is given to the Minister to decide what information, conditions, or opinions are required, and to enforcement officers to decide what is reasonable, necessary, or in the public interest, with further matters left to Governor-in-Council regulations.
Challenging the law itself. Broad phrases such as 'considers appropriate' and 'public interest' could support a vagueness or overbreadth argument under section 7 of the Charter, though the presence of defined terms and warrant requirements may blunt the claim.
Disputing a charge under it. An accused can readily dispute whether activities were 'likely' to cause unjustified impact or whether detention was 'necessary in the public interest,' because those standards depend on contested opinions rather than measurable facts.
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.