Bill C-7 · 37th Parliament · Paul Martin
Public Safety Act, 2002
An Act to amend certain Acts of Canada, and to enact measures for implementing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, in order to enhance public safety
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 chamberMay 3, 2004
- Became lawMay 6, 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: EasyDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill relies heavily on ministerial opinions about threats, necessity and public interest rather than fixed criteria. This leaves most powers open to argument over what situations qualify.
Open to argument
“if the appropriate Ministers believe that immediate action is required to deal with a significant danger”
Uses subjective belief and undefined 'significant danger' instead of objective facts.“If the Minister is of the opinion that there is an immediate threat”
Ties the power to the Minister's personal opinion rather than verifiable conditions.“in the opinion of the Minister or officer, as the case may be, is in the public interest and is not likely to adversely affect”
Applies vague public-interest and likelihood standards that invite prolonged debate.“the Minister considers it necessary to do so”
Grants power based on the Minister's own assessment of necessity without further limits.
Clear-cut
“must be destroyed within seven days after it is provided or obtained”
Sets a clear, measurable time limit for destruction of information.
Discretion. Ministers and designated officials hold broad discretion to decide when threats exist, when action is needed, what security measures require, and whether exemptions serve the public interest.
Challenging the law itself. The repeated use of subjective ministerial opinion and undefined terms like 'threat' and 'public interest' makes the provisions vulnerable to Charter challenges on vagueness and overbreadth grounds, particularly sections 7 and 2(b).
Disputing a charge under it. Because many prohibitions turn on whether the Minister formed an opinion or considered something necessary, an accused would face difficulty disputing the factual basis of the violation.
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.