Bill C-5 · 39th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Public Health Agency of Canada Act
An Act respecting the establishment of the Public Health Agency of Canada and amending certain Acts
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedApril 24, 2006
- Debated in principleMay 8, 2006
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 20, 2006
- Passed the second chamberNov. 2, 2006
- Became lawDec. 12, 2006
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
- Wilbert J. KeonSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Paul SzaboStates the bill has the support of the House and contributes to debate in favor.
- Pat MartinSpeaks positively on behalf of NDP about the public health agency and its importance.
- Steven FletcherPresents the bill at third reading and reports strong support with no amendments.
- Joy SmithDescribes the bill as a key piece supporting federal public health efforts and commends the government.
- Olivia Chowcalls the act a good first step and says the agency is long overdue
- Bill SiksayStates explicitly that New Democrats want to support the bill while improving it.
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
That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health. · 2006-05-08 · Passed
How it changed on the way
59% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (2,860 words introduced, 2,733 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The core provisions establishing the agency and the Chief Public Health Officer remained intact. Additions completed the list of consequential amendments in the transitional section and updated the enacting formula and assent details.
- Introductory text was changed from bill format to final statute format with chapter number and assent date.
Before: “Order in council 1st Session, 39th Parliament, 55 Elizabeth II, 2006 HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA BILL C-5”
After: “First Session, Thirty-ninth Parliament, 55 Elizabeth II, 2006 STATUTES OF CANADA 2006 CHAPTER 5”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The Act uses clear definitions and fixed numbers for terms, appointments, and penalties, but leaves wide scope for regulations and subjective judgment on information handling and public health measures. This mix creates some black-and-white rules alongside open-ended powers that invite argument over scope.
Open to argument
“subject to any terms and conditions that the Minister considers appro”
Broad discretion granted without defined limits or criteria.“the protection of that information if it is confidential information, including if it is personal information”
Undefined terms and open-ended regulation-making power over what counts as protected.
Clear-cut
“liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both”
Fixed maximum penalties stated in numbers with no variable standards.“for a term not exceeding five years”
Clear numerical limit on tenure with reappointment rule stated explicitly.
Discretion. Extensive power is delegated to the Minister to make regulations on data collection and confidentiality, to appoint committees, and to delegate duties, plus Governor in Council orders for transitional matters and deputy-head designations.
Challenging the law itself. The Act is largely structural and administrative with limited direct impact on Charter rights, making vagueness or overbreadth claims difficult to mount against the text itself.
Disputing a charge under it. The offence hinges on contravening unspecified regulations, so an accused could readily dispute whether the regulation was validly made or whether the conduct fell inside its scope.
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.