Bill S-2 · 39th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedApril 24, 2006
- Debated in principleMay 3, 2006
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMay 29, 2006
- Passed the second chamberMarch 29, 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
- Ethel CochraneSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Brian MasseCalls the bill important with consensus among stakeholders and says it corrects problems.
- Patricia DavidsonStates she is pleased to speak in support and notes all stakeholders are in full support.
- Rob MerrifieldDescribes the legislation as important and praises the collaborative amendments from labour, industry and governments.
- Marcel Lussierdescribes the bill's aims positively and expresses personal pleasure in speaking to it based on his expertise.
- Bonnie Brownstates she is pleased to speak on the bill and agrees on core points like worker safety.
- Steven FletcherHe presents the bill as having full support from all stakeholders with no opposition.
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
69% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (1,893 words introduced, 1,433 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The core purpose of allowing claimants to declare confidential business information and provide substantiating details on request remained intact from introduction to royal assent. However, 69% of the introduced text was removed or replaced, with significant redrafting of procedural sections on claims, undertakings, notices, and appeals.
- Added requirement for appeal statements to include submissions in support.
Before: “A claimant or any affected party may, within such period as may be prescribed, appeal any decision or order of a screening officer made under section 15, 16 or 17 by filing with the Chief Appeals Officer a statement of appeal setting out the grounds on which the appeal is made and any submissions in respect thereof.”
After: “An appeal shall be brought by filing with the Chief Appeals Officer, within the prescribed period, a statement of appeal setting out the grounds on which the appeal is made and any submissions in support of the appeal.”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: EasyDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill uses many subjective phrases and open-ended references to regulations or officer opinions instead of fixed rules. This leaves core questions about what must be disclosed or complied with open to prolonged argument.
Open to argument
“any information that, in the opinion of a screening officer, should have been disclosed”
Turns disclosure on an officer's subjective view rather than an objective test.“any other prescribed circumstances”
Defers the scope of screening powers to future regulations without limits in the Act.“making any order that the appeal board considers appro”
Grants open-ended remedial power without statutory criteria or boundaries.“in the manner and within the period specified in the undertaking”
Leaves timing and method entirely to the officer's drafting of each undertaking.
Clear-cut
“No order made under paragraph (3)(b) shall have retrospective effect”
Provides a clear black-and-white prohibition on retroactive orders.
Discretion. Screening officers, the Chief Screening Officer and appeal boards decide what information must be disclosed, what compliance measures are acceptable, and what orders are appropriate, with further details left to Governor-in-Council regulations.
Challenging the law itself. Repeated use of 'in the opinion of' and 'considers appropriate' supplies the kind of subjective standard that supports a vagueness or overbreadth argument under the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. Because many obligations hinge on an officer's satisfaction or opinion rather than measurable criteria, a person can readily dispute whether the duty was triggered or met.
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.