Bill C-9 · 40th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedFeb. 2, 2009
- Debated in principleFeb. 13, 2009
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMarch 25, 2009
- Passed the second chamberMay 12, 2009
- Became lawMay 13, 2009
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
- John D. WallaceSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Brian Jeanexpresses absolute pleasure at third reading and highlights extensive consultations leading to the bill
- Mario Laframboisewill support in principle to allow debate and witnesses at committee
- Ms. Candice Hoeppnernotes hard committee work with stakeholders leading to consensus on the bill
- Senator WallaceSenate · SenatorIt will give the government and the RCMP the tools they need to protect public safety during the transportation of dangerous goods
- Senator MercerSenate · SenatorThe Liberal Party is very committed to improving the safety and security of Canadians by supporting the bill
- Joe ComartinDescribes the bill as long overdue in addressing transportation of dangerous goods.
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.
What it set out to do
On 2 February, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, introduced Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. The Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, which received Royal Assent on 23 June 1992, was designed to promote public safety during the transportation of dangerous goods. The proposed amendments aim to enhance security and safety during the transport of dangerous goods. As amended by Bill C-9, the Act would remain focused on the prevention of incidents during the offering for transport, handling, transporting and importing of dangerous goods. According to information provided by Transport Canada, it would also enable a prevention program and a response capability for the Government of Canada in the event of a security incident involving dangerous goods.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “Bill C-9 · 2009-03-23 · Failed
What the Senate tried to change
- adds review or sunsetSenator Mercerclarify the role of the Senate committee's review of any future regulations that may be enacted under the actAdopted · May 12, 2009 · Senate record
How it changed on the way
79% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (13,980 words introduced, 9,311 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill passed with most core definitions, prohibitions and security clearance rules intact but with refinements to section 6 and addition of section 6.1. Minor wording and formatting changes also appeared throughout the final statute.
- New section 6.1 was added after section 6.
After: “6.1 No person shall affix or display on dangerous goods, a”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill supplies clear definitions for technical terms but relies heavily on the Minister's or inspector's subjective beliefs on reasonable grounds and on future regulations for core obligations. This leaves the exact scope of prohibitions and powers open to argument in individual cases.
Open to argument
“if the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that it can be implemented and will be effective”
Subjective belief test replaces an objective standard for approving emergency plans.“If the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that any standardized means of contain”
Minister's opinion determines when recall powers apply, without fixed criteria.“unless the person is financially responsible in accordance with the regulations”
Key compliance duty is defined entirely by future regulations rather than in the Act.
Clear-cut
“"standardized means of containment" means a means of containment to which a safety standard applies under the regulations.”
Term is tied directly to the existence of a regulation rather than left open-ended.
Discretion. Extensive discretion is granted to the Minister and inspectors through repeated use of 'believes on reasonable grounds' plus wholesale incorporation of requirements set by regulation.
Challenging the law itself. The Act targets commercial activity with many objective definitional anchors, making a successful vagueness or overbreadth challenge under s. 7 of the Charter unlikely.
Disputing a charge under it. An accused can contest whether an inspector or Minister actually held the required reasonable grounds or whether the cited regulation applied, but the factual disputes are narrow once the regulatory text is known.
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.