Bill C-475 · 40th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (methamphetamine and ecstasy)
Private member’s bill. Became law.
- IntroducedDone
- Debated in principleApril 14, 2010
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 9, 2010
- Passed the second chamberMarch 24, 2011
- Became lawMarch 24, 2011
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Daniel LangSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- John Weston9 interventions in debateHe introduced and moved the bill multiple times while praising its goals for youth and communities.
- Jim Maloway5 interventions in debateHe congratulated the sponsor and stated intent to help advance the bill despite minor procedural notes.
- Kirsty DuncanShe called the bill an important step after recounting a drug-related death.
- Meili FailleShe noted unanimous consent to advance the bill and described its new offence positively.
- Andrew KaniaExplicitly states support for sending the bill to committee.
- Daniel PetitHe thanked the sponsor and endorsed the bill's focus on methamphetamine and ecstasy problems.
- Chris WarkentinStates the bill is close to his heart and thanks the sponsor for introducing 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 Justice and Human Rights. · 2010-04-14 · Passed
How it changed on the way
80% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (471 words introduced, 448 passed). A committee amended it.
minor changeintent mostly kept
The core prohibition on items used to produce or traffic in methamphetamine or ecstasy stayed identical, as did the coordinating amendment with Bill C-15. The only substantive addition was a coming-into-force clause that delayed the new section by 90 days after royal assent.
- Added a coming-into-force delay not present in the introduced version.
After: “Section 1 comes into force 90 days after the day on which this Act receives royal assent.”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: EasyDisputing a charge: Moderate
The drafting pins the offence to exact schedule items and a fixed numerical sentence but uses an open-ended 'anything' and a forward-looking knowledge test. These elements leave room for disputes over scope and mental state.
Open to argument
“anything”
The word is undefined and unlimited, so it supplies no clear boundary on which objects fall inside the prohibition.
Clear-cut
“item 18 of Schedule I or subitem 1(9) of Schedule III”
The text cross-references fixed schedule entries, allowing immediate verification without further interpretation.“imprisonment for a term of not more than ten years less a day”
It states a precise numerical ceiling rather than an open-ended or discretionary range.
Discretion. The statute creates a direct prohibition with no grants of power to ministers, officials, or regulations.
Challenging the law itself. The wide reach of 'anything' combined with the knowledge element could readily be attacked as overbroad under section 7 of the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. An accused can contest the offence by disputing whether they possessed the required knowledge of future use.
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.