Bill C-44 · 37th Parliament · Jean Chrétien
Injured Military Members Compensation Act
An Act to compensate military members injured during service
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedJune 11, 2003
- Debated in principleJune 13, 2003
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 13, 2003
- Passed the second chamberJune 17, 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
45% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (2,870 words introduced, 2,796 passed).
moderate changeintent mostly kept
The core compensation scheme for injured military members remained intact from introduction to royal assent on 19 June 2003. Updates modernized references to archives and shipping legislation and added a schedule plus finality provisions.
- Added clause making review decisions final subject only to Federal Courts Act judicial review.
After: “Decision is final (4) A decision of the Minister respecting a review is final and binding and, except for judicial review under the Federal Courts Act, is not subject to appeal or to review by any court.”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The Act sets fixed dollar caps, exact time windows, and enumerated service classes with cross-referenced definitions, yet repeatedly conditions payment on the Minister being satisfied that listed facts exist. This mix of bright-line rules and open-ended ministerial judgment produces both quick answers on quantum and prolonged argument over eligibility.
Open to argument
“if the Minister is satisfied that”
Converts every listed condition into a subjective ministerial opinion rather than an objective test.“the overpayment cannot be recovered within the reasonably foreseeable future”
Uses an undefined future-looking standard that invites debate over what is foreseeable.“repayment of the overpayment would cause undue hardship”
Relies on an undefined, value-laden phrase without statutory criteria.
Clear-cut
“The total benefits payable to a person in respect of an injury that may result in one or more losses shall not exceed $250,000 for a person referred to in subsection 4(1) or $100,000 for a person referred to in subsection 4(2).”
States an absolute numerical ceiling with no discretion to exceed it.“the loss occurred within 90 days after the injury”
Fixes a clear, measurable time limit.
Discretion. The Minister holds wide discretion to decide entitlement, demand documents, investigate, remit overpayments, and review own decisions, with only the Federal Courts Act providing external oversight.
Challenging the law itself. Detailed definitions, fixed amounts, and enumerated conditions make a successful vagueness or overbreadth challenge under s. 7 of the Charter unlikely.
Disputing a charge under it. An applicant can readily contest denial by pointing to the benefit-of-doubt rule and specific statutory criteria, but the Minister's satisfaction standard still leaves room for factual dispute.
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.