An Act to amend the Quarantine Act

How it changed on the way

67% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (922 words introduced, 590 passed).

minor changeintent mostly kept

The bill passed with two small wording changes in the obligations for conveyance operators. The scope of conveyances covered was broadened slightly and the exception for reporting was narrowed by adding 'reasonably'.

• Changed the type of conveyance covered by the reporting duty.

  Before: “a watercraft or aircraft that is used in the business of carrying persons or cargo;”

  After: “a conveyance that is used in the business of carrying persons or cargo;”

• Added the word 'reasonably' to the exception for late reporting.

  Before: “if it is not possible for the operator to inform a quarantine officer or cause a quarantine officer to be informed before the conveyance's arrival at its destination in Canada, as long as the operator does so on the conveyance's arrival at that destination.”

  After: “if it is not reasonably possible for the operator to inform a quarantine officer or cause a quarantine officer to be informed before the conveyance's arrival at its destination in Canada, as long as the operator does so on the conveyance's arrival at that destination.”

How precisely it is written

mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate

The bill mixes exact numerical penalties and listed offence sections with several open-ended phrases that require later interpretation. Much of the detail on what must be reported is left to regulations or the judgment of officials.

Open to argument

• “any reasonable grounds to suspect”

  This subjective standard invites argument over what facts meet the threshold.

• “prescribed conveyance”

  The term is undefined and depends entirely on future regulations.

• “any prescribed circumstances exist”

  Leaves the triggering conditions to ministerial prescription rather than stating them in the Act.

• “as soon as possible”

  A flexible timing rule without an objective deadline or measurable test.

Clear-cut

• “a fine of not more than $750,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both”

  Uses fixed maximum amounts and an objective either-or structure.

• “tion 6(2), 8(1) or 34(2) or (3), section 36 or 38, subsection 42(1), section 45 or 50, subsection 54(3), section 58 or 59 or subsection 73(2) or the regulations”

  Enumerates exact provisions that trigger liability.

Discretion. The Minister alone decides which diseases and conveyances are covered by adding to the schedule or prescribing classes, and officials decide on the spot whether suspicion is reasonable.

Challenging the law itself. Section 7 Charter liberty interests could be invoked on grounds of vagueness arising from the 'reasonable grounds to suspect' and 'prescribed' language.

Disputing a charge under it. An accused could readily dispute whether the facts met the 'reasonable grounds' or 'not reasonably possible' tests, though the listed offence sections themselves are clear.

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.