Bill C-28 · 38th Parliament · Paul Martin
An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedNov. 29, 2004
- Debated in principleFeb. 14, 2005
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberOct. 18, 2005
- Passed the second chamberNov. 22, 2005
- Became lawNov. 24, 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
77% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (1,378 words introduced, 1,285 passed).
minor changeintent kept
The bill passed with only minor adjustments to section numbering and the addition of royal assent details. All substantive provisions on interim marketing authorizations remained unchanged from introduction to royal assent.
- Section numbering for deeming and coming into force provisions was adjusted in the final statute.
Before: “. Pest control products 20 25 (2) Subsection (1) comes into force on the later of the coming into force of sections 1 to 4 of this Act and the coming into force of section 89 of the Pest Control Products Act, chapter 28 of the Statutes of Canada, 2002. Coming into force 30 6.”
After: “. Pest control products (2) Subsection (1) comes into force on the later of the coming into force of sections 1 to 4 of this Act and the coming into force of section 89 of the Pest Control Products Act, chapter 28 of the Statutes of Canada, 2002. Coming into force 6.”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill sets clear numerical limits, time caps, and publication rules for interim authorizations but leaves the core decision on safety to the Minister's subjective judgment. This mix creates both black-and-white boundaries and open-ended discretion.
Open to argument
“if the Minister determines that the food would not be harmful to the health of the purchaser or consumer”
Uses a subjective health-harm test without objective criteria or defined thresholds.“may exempt the food from the application, in whole or in part”
Broad discretion to decide the scope of exemption rather than fixed rules.“An authorization may contain any terms and conditions specified by the Minister”
Open-ended power to add unspecified conditions.
Clear-cut
“shall be published in the Canada Gazette”
Mandatory publication creates an objective public record and start date.“the amount of the agricultural chemical and the components or derivatives, singly or in any combination, in or on the food does not exceed the maximum residue limit that is set out in the authorization”
Uses measurable residue limits tied directly to the authorization text.
Discretion. The Minister alone decides whether a food is safe, chooses the exact limits and conditions, and can cancel the authorization at any time.
Challenging the law itself. The broad safety discretion and exemption powers could be attacked under Charter s. 7 for vagueness, but the detailed limits and short duration make a successful overbreadth claim difficult.
Disputing a charge under it. Once an authorization exists its numerical limits are objective, yet disputes can arise over whether a given food falls inside the Minister's chosen terms or the deemed exemptions.
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.