Bill C-22 · 38th Parliament · Paul Martin
Department of Social Development Act
An Act to establish the Department of Social Development and to amend and repeal certain related Acts
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedNov. 16, 2004
- Debated in principleDec. 7, 2004
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 8, 2005
- Passed the second chamberJuly 19, 2005
- Became lawJuly 20, 2005
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
50% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (7,716 words introduced, 7,524 passed).
substantial changeintent broadened
The passed Act added language allowing information sharing that includes the Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security Act. Half the introduced text was removed or replaced, mainly by extending section 28 and related definitions.
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The Act relies heavily on the Minister's subjective opinions and open-ended phrases to control personal information flows. This leaves wide room for argument over what disclosures or uses are permitted.
Open to argument
“that the Minister considers appropriate”
Subjective test lets the Minister decide the scope of agreements and advice without fixed criteria.“the Minister considers it advisable”
Vague standard governs when information may be shared with other bodies or foreign entities.“if he or she deems it appropriate”
Privacy Commissioner's discretion to notify individuals rests on an undefined appropriateness test.
Clear-cut
“a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both”
Exact numerical limits on penalties for individuals create clear liability.“a fine of not more than $100,000”
Fixed maximum fine for bodies supplies a bright-line punishment rule.“In this Act, "Minister" means the Minister of Social Development”
Single defined term removes ambiguity about who holds the powers.
Discretion. Nearly every information-sharing rule hinges on the Minister's opinion of advisability, appropriateness or reasonable necessity, plus the power to set conditions in agreements and to authorize research uses.
Challenging the law itself. Broad ministerial discretion and undefined terms such as 'advisable' could be attacked under Charter s. 8 or the vagueness doctrine, but courts often uphold similar privacy regimes as policy choices.
Disputing a charge under it. An accused could argue that a disclosure met or failed the Minister's subjective 'advisable' or 'opinion' tests, but the existence of written agreements may narrow factual disputes.
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.