Bill C-23 · 38th Parliament · Paul Martin
Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act
An Act to establish the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development and to amend and repeal certain related Acts
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedNov. 16, 2004
- Debated in principleNov. 23, 2004
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 1, 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 (10,089 words introduced, 9,834 passed).
moderate changeintent mostly kept
The bill was enacted with only minor additions to complete the rules for an acting Chairperson of the Canada Employment Insurance Commission. All core departmental establishment, powers, and commission structure provisions remained unchanged from introduction to royal assent.
- Added rules for the Vice-Chairperson to act as Chairperson during absence or vacancy.
After: “(3) In the event of the absence or incapacity of the Chairperson or if the office of Chairper- son is vacant, the Vice-Chairperson has and may exercise all the powers and perform all the duties and functions of the Chairperson. Acting Chairperson (4) In the”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The text uses many subjective phrases that turn on a minister's or official's opinion rather than fixed criteria. Defined terms and numerical penalties exist but sit inside wide grants of power.
Open to argument
“other persons or bodies that the Minister considers appropriate”
The phrase lets the Minister decide coverage with no objective test.“unless the Minister considers it advisable”
Availability of information hinges on the Minister's view rather than stated conditions.“if he or she deems it appropriate”
Privacy Commissioner notification is left to a subjective judgment.“the Minister is of the opinion that the purpose for which the information is made available cannot reasonably be accomplished”
Disclosure of identifying information rests on an opinion rather than measurable facts.
Clear-cut
“liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both”
Maximum penalties are stated in exact numbers.“liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than $100,000”
Corporate fine limit is a clear dollar figure.
Discretion. The Minister, the Privacy Commissioner and the Governor in Council receive repeated authority to decide what is advisable, appropriate or in their opinion necessary, including through regulations and agreements.
Challenging the law itself. Repeated subjective standards such as 'considers appropriate' and 'of the opinion' could support a vagueness or overbreadth argument under section 7 of the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. A person accused of improper disclosure can argue that the Minister's or official's discretionary judgment was not met or was exercised unreasonably.
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.