Bill C-4 · 37th Parliament · Paul Martin
An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Ethics Commissioner and Senate Ethics Officer) and other Acts in consequence
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedFeb. 11, 2004
- Debated in principleFeb. 11, 2004
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberFeb. 11, 2004
- Passed the second chamberMarch 29, 2004
- Became lawMarch 31, 2004
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Paul MartinPrime 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
The texts have not been compared yet.
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill relies heavily on subjective phrases such as 'considers necessary' and 'in the opinion of' that give wide latitude to the Ethics Commissioner and Senate Ethics Officer. Defined terms and fixed periods exist but are outnumbered by discretionary standards that invite argument over scope.
Open to argument
“that the Senate Ethics Officer considers necessary for the proper conduct of the work of the office”
The phrase 'considers necessary' and the undefined term 'proper conduct' create a subjective test rather than an objective standard.“the disclosure is, in the opinion of the Ethics Commissioner, essential for the purposes of this section”
Reliance on the officer's personal opinion leaves the boundary of permitted disclosure open to prolonged dispute.“believes on reasonable grounds that the minister or parliamentary secretary has committed an offence”
The 'reasonable grounds' threshold is a subjective judgment call that can be contested without clear statutory markers.“any officers and employees and may engage the services of any agents, advisers and consultants”
The unlimited power to hire anyone deemed useful grants broad, unchecked administrative discretion.
Clear-cut
“holds office during good behaviour for a term of seven years”
A fixed numerical term and clear removal mechanism reduce ambiguity about tenure.“The Governor in Council shall, by commission under the Great Seal, appoint a Senate Ethics Officer after consultation with the leader of every recognized party in the Senate and after approval of the appointment by resolution of the Senate”
The appointment process is spelled out with specific actors and steps rather than open-ended discretion.
Discretion. Extensive discretion is left to the Ethics Commissioner, Senate Ethics Officer, and Governor in Council to decide staffing levels, what information to disclose, when to suspend examinations, and what regulations are 'necessary' or 'deemed necessary'.
Challenging the law itself. The repeated use of 'in the opinion of' and 'considers necessary' could support a vagueness or overbreadth argument under s. 7 of the Charter, though the administrative rather than penal context may limit success.
Disputing a charge under it. A person facing an adverse finding can readily dispute whether the officer's subjective belief met the 'reasonable grounds' or 'necessary' thresholds, but the broad powers to compel evidence make outright dismissal harder.
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?
partly effective
The 2004 Act successfully established independent Ethics Commissioner and Senate Ethics Officer positions, leading to ongoing ethics oversight institutions that have operated for over two decades with annual reporting and investigations. However, peer-reviewed analyses indicate the offices' impact remains constrained by mandate limitations and parliamentary relationships, with calls for legislative improvements.
- The impact and role of officers of Parliament: Canada's conflict of interest and ethics commissioner (Bergman & Macfarlane, 2018)studyThe office is constrained in its mandate and its impact limited by the nature and extent of its relationship with Parliament.
- Emergence of a Distinctive Model (May 2009)studyThe four building blocks of Canada’s parliamentary ethics regime have been validated by two decades of experience as effective measures to raise the level of ethical behaviour of parliamentarians.
- Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner appearance before ETHI Committee (2025)reviewThe Act has been working quite well since it took effect in 2007 and met the purpose set out in section 3, though room for improvement exists.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.