Bill C-37 · 39th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the law governing financial institutions and to provide for related and consequential matters
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedNov. 27, 2006
- Debated in principleDec. 7, 2006
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberFeb. 27, 2007
- Passed the second chamberMarch 28, 2007
- Became lawMarch 29, 2007
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
- W. David AngusSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Thierry St-CyrConcludes after analysis that the Bloc supports the principle of the bill for consumer information benefits.
- Jim FlahertyIntroduces the bill and highlights its role in improving entrepreneurial advantage and global competitiveness.
- John McCallumstates they support the bill as it follows prior Liberal proposals
- Pierre Paquettenotes the bill introduces changes while ensuring stability
- Yasmin Ratansidescribes the bill positively as keeping institutions efficient with technology changes
- Diane Ablonczypresents the bill at third reading and highlights its benefits for the sector
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
How it changed on the way
62% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (75,050 words introduced, 72,439 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill saw 62% of its introduced text changed, with several technical provisions on bank operations and approvals removed or revised while core amendments to financial institutions law remained intact. New clauses were added at the end covering acknowledgments, permissions for corporate changes, and related approvals.
- Completed and added non-application rule for former Schedule I banks after amalgamation.
Before: “if the Minister specifies that it no”
After: “longer applies to the bank. Non-application of subsection (1)”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill mixes a few fixed numerical rules with repeated reliance on ministerial and superintendent opinions plus undefined regulatory terms. This leaves core prohibitions and permissions open to case-by-case interpretation rather than clear black-and-white tests.
Open to argument
“on any terms and conditions that the Superintendent considers appropriate”
Broad discretion granted without statutory limits or defined criteria.“in the opinion of the Minister, the Canadian entity engages in or carries on business that is the same as, or similar, related or incidental to”
Vague similarity test controlled by ministerial view rather than fixed categories.“"registered product" means a product that is defined to be a registered product by the regulations”
Core term left entirely to future regulations instead of being defined in the statute.
Clear-cut
“would exceed 80 per cent of the value of the property at the time of the loan”
Clear numerical ceiling creates an objective test.“after the day that is the fifth anniversary of the day on which this section comes into force”
Fixed calendar trigger leaves no interpretive room.“fixed in number and distributed to the public in an offering under a preliminary prospectus”
Specific procedural requirement that can be verified from documents.
Discretion. Extensive power is delegated to the Minister and Superintendent through repeated “opinion” clauses and open-ended authority to set terms, conditions, and regulatory definitions.
Challenging the law itself. Financial-institution rules rarely engage Charter vagueness claims successfully and the text supplies no obvious overbreadth hook.
Disputing a charge under it. Accused parties could argue that an official’s subjective opinion or an undefined regulatory term fails to give fair notice, though success would require showing the vagueness is unconstitutional.
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.