Bill C-293 · 39th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Official Development Assistance Accountability Act
An Act respecting the provision of official development assistance abroad
Private member’s bill. Became law.
- IntroducedDone
- Debated in principleDone
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberDone
- Passed the second chamberApril 15, 2008
- Became lawMay 29, 2008
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Roméo Antonius DallaireSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- John McKay2 interventions in debatemoves the motion and seeks a final vote to pass the bill.
- Hugh SegalSenate · SenatorHe proposed the amendments and urged passage of the bill as amended to strengthen foreign aid.
- The Acting Speakerdeclares the motion carried unanimously with no dissent heard.
- Claude DeBellefeuillestates the Bloc Québécois supports the Senate amendments and is in favour of the bill.
- Ted Menziesaccepts amendments to address prior concerns and now backs the bill.
- Alexa McDonoughwelcomes the final adoption of the bill after collaborative work.
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
What the Senate tried to change
- adds provisionsHugh SegalAdds reference to the principles of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness in clause 2.Adopted · April 16, 2008 · Senate record
- technicalHugh SegalClarifies the definition of "competent minister" in clause 3 to list specific ministers.Adopted · April 16, 2008 · Senate record
- narrows scopeHugh SegalNarrows the definition of "international human rights standards" in clause 3 to conventions to which Canada is a party.Adopted · April 16, 2008 · Senate record
- adds safeguardsHugh SegalAdds a safeguard in clause 5 to protect confidentiality policies of Bretton Woods institutions.Adopted · April 16, 2008 · Senate record
How it changed on the way
98% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (1,524 words introduced, 1,160 passed). A committee amended it.
transformative changeintent broadened
The bill kept its core goal of tying aid to poverty reduction and human rights but replaced the advisory committee and petition system with direct reports to Parliament. It also added new definitions, expanded the purpose to cover aid effectiveness and democracy, and tightened how official aid is counted.
- Short title changed and purpose expanded to include Paris Declaration, democracy promotion and exclusive definition of aid.
Before: “This Act may be cited as the Development Assistance Accountability Act.”
After: “This Act may be cited as the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act.”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard
The Act relies heavily on ministerial opinion and open-ended definitions that invite debate over what counts as poverty reduction or Canadian values. Objective thresholds exist but are overshadowed by subjective standards and broad discretion.
Open to argument
“democracy" includes, but is not limited to, political and civil rights as defined by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”
Open-ended 'includes but is not limited to' language expands coverage without clear boundaries.“takes into account the perspectives of the poor;”
Vague phrasing offers no measurable standard for compliance.
Clear-cut
“conveys a grant element of at least 25%”
Numeric threshold supplies a clear, verifiable criterion.“This Act comes into force 30 days after the day on which it receives royal assent.”
Fixed timeline removes discretion over commencement.“consult with governments, international agencies and Canadian civil society organizations at least once every two years”
Specifies frequency and participants with no qualifiers.
Discretion. Ministers decide whether assistance meets the three criteria in subsection 4(1) and may withhold information under Bretton Woods policies, leaving most day-to-day application to their opinions.
Challenging the law itself. Vagueness and overbreadth doctrines under section 7 of the Charter could be invoked because key terms such as 'Canadian values' and 'poverty reduction' lack sufficient precision.
Disputing a charge under it. The Act imposes no direct obligations on private persons; disputes would centre on ministerial opinions rather than factual breaches.
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?
The evidence has not been searched yet.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.